Posted on 01/23/2016 3:28:08 PM PST by LibFreeUSA
And Cruz never took money from Soros. Donald Trump took $168 Million from George Soros.
____________________
Do you have a source for that claim?
http://helenaglass.net/2015/09/11/is-trump-a-soros-decoy/
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/04/trump-tied-to-soros/
With Mr. Trump, who has a better than average understanding of marketing, I understand he has likely done the research to find out all the right things to say, and where and when best to say them.
He knows who it will be popular to gig on the television and which toes to step on to the great ecstatic pleasure of the frustrated massed of America's productive (and wishing to be productive again) class.
He has the correct pitch to play to the frustrations of America and is in tune with that.
Now, looking beyond the presentation which has its appeal, it is time to do due diligence.
I won't paint him with the actions or connections of any of his wives.
I do view his claim to Conservatism, and recognize that is a relatively recent development on many issues. His past political donations are primarily a hedging of bets to remain relevant to whoever wins, no principles involved, just buisness.
Keep in mind that the RKBA, illegal immigration, the collapse of American industry (partially offshoring, partially regulatory burden including Obamacare), the economic mess including the national debt and Congressional overspending, and stopping the continued slaughter of the unborn are key issues to Conservatives, to name a few.
In general, Americans are concerned (and rightfully so) about their diminishing rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as their right to travel unmolested within their own country while those who don't belong here do so with impunity.
I could go on, but I believe you already have the picture.
I have been watching Mr. Trump's actions, past and present, and what they are telling me does not necessarily match the message Americans are hearing from him.
In Iowa, and I have belabored this shining example, Mr Trump, in placating the Ethanol/(corn) Farm Lobby indicated he would maintain subsidies (our tax money redistributed to a Federally mandated industry), would continue the mandate (E-10 gasoline means every driver gets a 10% cut in their mileage, or at least that has been my experience, not to mention the damage to countless small engines from lawn mowers to marine engines including outboard motors), and would use the EPA to enforce that, if not add to that 10% level of ethanol in fuel.
Now that might sound like a deal for Iowa, but it hurts the rest of America, and has the added bonus of indicating his intent to maintain the one agency which gets credit for destroying the coal industry, seriously hampering the ability to move petroleum in the US, the oil industry in general, and unabashedly has polluted a River by releasing mine waste into the river despite warnings that that would be the effect of their actions.
That, frankly, is one agency we could do without, and so could the landowners of over a million acres of Wyoming whose land has been given to the Wind River Tribe by the EPA, even though the EPA has no authority to change the boundaries of a State.
That alone, frankly, indicates he is willing to sell anyone down the river to make a 'deal'.
By endorsing the Ethanol Mandate, Mr. Trump ingratiated himself with powerful lobbies and politicians in Iowa who don't seem to think their wonder product will survive without Federal subsidies or mandates.
That means the rest of us pay for it, in more ways than one.
That Mr. Trump can 'win' by cutting such deals may well prove to be far more of a negative than we would desire.
We have been there before.
We elected a Republican Congress that could win to stop Barrack Obama, a Congress of candidates who said the 'right' things, and then they proceeded to do exactly what we did not want them to do, namely give Barrack Obama every damned thing he asked for and more.
Of that group, Mr Cruz is a prominent standout, who has fought much of what his colleagues have passed, and has earned their enmity by failing to go along and get along. That is why Mr. Cruz interests me, and Mr. Trump seems lacking. It becomes a question of principle.
I do not expect perfection from any candidate, but the courage of conviction, doing what is right, whether that costs popularity is something we need.
I forget whether it was Sam or John Adams (maybe both) which had the reputation for being cantankerous and disagreeable, but when disagreement is important to the survival of this nation, I would take that over putting aspects of our future on the table to make a deal.
And here we have the crux of the whole cult-like following of the (D)onald.
I didn’t go *anywhere*. The author tried to pump (D)onald by elevating his familial situation to some kind of paragon. I simply pointed out that (D)onald has had children by three women, and at least one of those children has been out of wedlock. This is not a family situation conservatives would typically admire, but the author GUSHES over (D)onald’s family like we should admire HIS over Obama’s.
Let’s be clear: Obama is an ass. Michelle is an ass. I’m certain their children will grow up to be bigger asses than Chelsea.
BUT...
Just because I disagree with them on almost every political matter does not mean that their *intact nuclear family* is somehow inferior to the (D)onald’s fragmented, multi-divorce, out-of-wedlock family from a conservative perspective. Until we have proof that Michelle is, in fact, a beard, then Obama’s family is a better model family than the (D)onald’s.
So, when you wrote...
“The insanity coming out of people to defend “their†candidate on here has reached a level I never thought I’d see on FR.”
...I must say that I wholeheartedly agree. You are exhibit #1.
First of all, nothing in my comment defended her article per say. But YOUR comment absolutely insinuated that somehow because Trump has been married numerous times and Obama has only been married once that somehow that makes Obama a better, more moral person than Trump.
I read her article. I don’t know this woman or whether she knows what she’s talking about but YOUR comment alone makes you sound completely irrational.
I’m not Exhibit #1 of anything! I’m not defending Trump I’m just stunned you would compare him to Obama. There isn’t anyone in the Republican presidential primary you can remotely compare to Obama, regardless of whether or not you like them or intend to vote for them.
To be honest, if we don’t stop the flood of emigrants coming into this country nothing else will matter. I could care less about ethanol subsidies or insignificant off the cuff statements made by Trump. I firmly believe Trump wants and will work for what is best for America and Americans. I also know what Cruz’s record is in the senate and who is paying his way in his campaign for POTUS. At this point in time, unless you have actual evidence that Trump would sell out America, there is nothing that you can say or argue that will change my mind. Fortunately it is almost an absolute that Trump will win the repub nomination I don’t think hillary or sanders stand a chance in the general. So I think there are going to be a lot of skeptics that will eventually have to admit that they did not give Trump credit for who he is and what his vision is. I think we are done here.
Would you buy a used oval office from that man?
How can I argue with someone who doesn’t understand context? Specifically, the context *this woman* created. SHE compared Obama to the (D)onald in terms of admiring one family over another. Personally, I admire the nuclear family over the (D)onald’s pattern of trading up for the latest model.
I don’t agree with Obama on anything else, but at least he’s maintained a core family.
So, IN THE CONTEXT of this woman’s argument, the point actually goes to Obama from a conservative standpoint, not (D)onald.
I’m pretty darn sure you won’t get that, though, so pretend you won the argument if it makes you feel better.
And Reagan took GHW Bush as his VP, the very definition of “Establishment” in 1980. Trump, despite that statement, is as anti-establishment as they come. Just look at how the GOPe hates and fears him - that is only possible if he is not one of them.
Trump is a relative newcomer to politics. Do an analysis of Reagan in 1960, and see if you come up with a past at that point in time as pure as the driven snow from the Conservative P.O.V. - guaranteed you won’t. The point is that no one is perfect, including from the ideological standpoint. We are dealing with men, not angels. Trump is certainly far from perfect... but so is Cruz.
My default position is that anyone appearing on the stage at any Republican debate is leagues ahead of Hillary or Sanders - so why don’t we all stop tearing down fellow Republicans, as Reagan urged us to do?
Now there’s a candidate we can all get behind!
My default position is that anyone appearing on the stage at any Republican debate is leagues ahead of Hillary or Sanders - so why don’t we all stop tearing down fellow Republicans, as Reagan urged us to do?
I disagree. There are Republicans worse than Hitlery and Sanders such as Sen Corker and Alexander and Gov Haslam.
Don’t know much about the last 2, but Corker is permanently on my fecal roster for that Iran crap he pulled.
But the folks on the stage now are at least all better than O (which is clearly not a high standard to exceed).
I could use some “dreams coming true.”
Definitely none of the other candidates are offering that! ;)
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.