Posted on 10/09/2015 6:46:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I believe about 30% of anything written politically and there’s only a 10% chance at that. Link a video or transcript with Trump specifically answering the question of Bush’s impeachement and answering exactly as stated in this article and I’ll make up my own mind.
This coming election. I like Bolton too, but learning this about McCain gave me pause.
I believe the proper word for the trump is “dilettante.”
I’ve said the same thing many times. On a good day, he’s only a dilettante. He’s keen to prove it too.
That is a bit silly on your part.
I think we can agree for certain that George Pataki won't be the nominee, right? I mean, we both know that a lot of candidates run for President for reasons other than winning. Often they simply do it to boost their name ID to get a TV or radio gig. Heck, Hermain Cain did it last cycle to promote his book (for free on supporters donations). Remember old Hermain? He was sky high in the polls this time last cycle and had a lot of naive people believing he was a serious candidate. He wasn't, and anyone who understands politics even reasonably well knew that. Yet, there was a time, even right here on FR, if you pointed out that Cain was not a serious candidate you'd get blasted as some establishment RINO.
I can only guess as to who the nominee will be, but winnowing down the field isn't too difficult. I'd say Cruz and Rubio are the two most likely nominees at this point. It won't be Trump or Carson and probably not Fiorini either (though she might get a VP nod).
My view is rather simplistic like Trump. Instead of turning the ME into a sea of glass after 911, Bush dilly-dallied for months seeking approval from the Libs of the world to go after his Daddy’s nemesis. Honestly, weren’t we all a bit stunned when he took the war to Iraq?
Evil dictatorships are the only type of government these savages understand. We must control the dictators but leave them in power if we are unwilling to nuke them back to the Stone Age.
I somewhat agree with Trump on this one.
This is a touchy subject and hope my words come out right. I stated on the board that the Iraq war would be over in about 90 days naturally after 90 days I started taking flak....
Bush and the whiners started the good ol NATION BUILDING crap. We lost so many good young people.
Now its an unpopular war because of Bush’s mismanagement. And of course dont forget bozo role in the disaster.
If this country needs to go to war then GO TO WAR and forget the PC shi’ite!
I was one of those and I was in Iraq back in the early 70s! But none of us wanted any part of nation building.
I enjoy dead mussies as much as the next guy and I dont ever expect them to be anything other than savages.
RE: If this country needs to go to war then GO TO WAR and forget the PC shi’ite!
So, it is your opinion that we bomb ISIS to hell like we did Dresden and Tokyo ( forget the innocent casualties ) and then go home?
well someone has to other wise they would be out of business and the establishment would be screwed even more so.
Bolton is worse than McCain. He wanted to start bombing Iran back in March:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html?_r=2&assetType=opinion
He is a nutcase. Search google for Bolton predictions and you’ll see that he never gets anything right.
This is what you get with cult of personality types. Trumpkins adore Trump for the man he is more than the policies he represents. Trump can say the most ridiculous things, promote liberal ideas, etc, and the Trumpkins will still love him because they love the idea of Trump. They see in him what they want to see. It does prove one thing though, an awful lot of people on the right of center that claimed to be conservative, were never really conservative at all. Trump is a populist, protectionist with a few conservative ideas (when it suits him) - but he is most definitely not a conservative person steeped in conservative ideology.
yep and no apologies.
"Stable" is highly subjective, the question is whether we'd have Isis beach party beheadings or 100s of thousands of "refugees" running amok. Smart money says we would not had (a) Sadam remained in power.
And sorry Frenchy, Trump wouldn't have meddled in Libya either.
Me too.
It being National Review, I am inclined to say “yes”. I have never and will never forgive them for firing John Derbyshire for his column which was in no way “rayciss”, but a completely civil description of some currently unpalatable, but nonetheless true, and statistically-backed, facts, and advice in dealing with said realities. If that column was more than they could stomach, they are useless (which they are anyway as the house organ of the GOPe).
Trump will be the nominee.
That's more and more apparent.
I doubt he even makes it past Iowa and New Hampshire.
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.