Would prefer a Cruz but will take a Trump.
I agree with this post completely.
I studied the candidates at the beginning. NOBODY was representing middle America. Not Jeb, not anyone. Cruz got it about our borders, but still seems to be absent about AMERICAN JOBS.
Only Trump, of the entire passle of candidates in both parties, is saying we need to bring back jobs to America.
That is my biggest issue, and Donald is the one one in either party, saying that. Cruz gets it on the border, but only Trump gets it about US jobs.
Don’t lie about that Donald, but I have no reason to suspect his motives.
And all of the evidence for all of the other candidates says, they don’t care one bit about American jobs.
Click The Pic
|
Projecting fears and anxiety onto Trump won’t fly, no matter if they are wrapped in a semi-lecture. The man is impervious to whining and is hell on wheels addressing issues, repeating his words until the picture is painted, already, and he has been in the race, what?, 10 weeks???
My thoughts too. But unlike the liberals, we have guns.
I don't know WHO you are, but you have in a concise manner written about the best letter in regard to our future in this country and the possibility of Trump being able to fix it that I have ever seen. I too am worried about his lack of credit to God and God's way of doing things that would actually save this nation. However, he has certain scared the living hell out of the oligarchy. Well done sir.
I’ll add my “Amen!” to your words. The way I see it, Jeb will lose to the dem runner anyway, so why not get Trump in and watch their collective heads explode and their shorts turn brown? And by “them” I mean the rinos.
Allen West is still my top pick, but I’ll take Cruz. If Donald runs away with the nomination I don’t trust him enough, but he’ll get my vote. He knows about marketing, and I doubt his sincerity.
Jeb will never have my vote. If it comes to that I’ll write in the candidate that can sweep it.
I have doubts that Trump could humble himself enough to read past the first paragraph.
It really is an excellent letter though.
And Mr. Trump, regarding this Iran deal:
Whether it is an executive agreement or a treaty, it requires illegality to perform and should, therefore, be utterly rejected. If the Senate does not reject it, Mr. Trump, our next President apparent, must declare it void and of no effect.
To his credit, Trump honors contracts, rightly sees a treaty as a contract (which is a mutual agreement), and says he will not simply breach the treaty because it is a bad deal, but if it is confirmed by the Senate he will look for holes in it.
Well, Mr. Trump, there appears to be a big gaping hole in this treaty (or executive agreement). There is such a thing as contracts that are void, of no effect, and unenforceable. A contract in which the performance would break the law is such a contract. The U.S. Constitution and laws forbid treason as illegal. The U.S. Constitution defines treason as including “adhering to [U.S.] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” (Art III, Sec 3, Cl 1). This treaty appears to require illegality becasue it looks to be an agreement whereby the U.S. is adhering to and aiding Iran, an avowed enemy of the U.S. in its nuclear development.
Note to Trump: A treaty (or executive agreement) that requires treason to perform is illegal and void. You have no duty, nor should you, enforce such a treaty because it amounts to an unenforceable contract. It would be rather your duty as President to declare such treaty void and of no effect.
