Posted on 08/29/2015 12:19:18 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says he is leading the GOP race because he represents Americans who have had it with their nation coming up short.
“People in this country are smart,” he told listeners at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies’ 2015 conference in Nashville on Saturday.
“We’re tired of being the patsies for everyone,” Trump said.
“There is a big, big, growing-by-leaps-and-bounds silent majority out there. [The 2016 race] is going to be an election based on competence.”
Trump argued he is surging in national polls because he represents the Tea Party supporters ignored by Democrats and betrayed by Republicans.
“I love the Tea Party,” Trump said. “You people have not been treated fairly. These are people who work hard and love their country, and then get beat up by the media. It’s disgusting.”
“At least I have a microphone and can fight back,” the outspoken billionaire added.
Trump indicated he envisions a much wider base for his campaign than traditional Republican voters next election cycle.
“You don’t know how big you are,” he told listeners. “The Tea Party has tremendous power. It’s Democrats, it is evangelicals, it is everybody.”
The New York business mogul also vowed he would not succumb to the prestige and power of Washington’s political establishment if he wins in 2016.
“They go to Washington and they get weak,” Trump said of Democrats and Republicans alike. “They get there and they see these beautiful, vaulted ceilings and they say, ‘Honey, I’ve made it.’ That won’t happen to me, I promise.”
Trump also said he intends on saving taxpayer dollars by focusing his energy on the nation’s capital if elected next year.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Sounds good to me. Ping me when he drops out.
I would do it if he was in November 2016. Won't happen, but I absolutely would if he were...
Poor nick. You don’t understand. Where did I say I was a Trump supporter nick? Link please (hint...you won’t find one).
Your view is still one that holds that the world is like it was in 2003.
You don’t matter nick. I respond because I am (and fr is in general) so tired of your crap you post eleventeen times on every thread you can find. So I’m telling you to open your eyes and see what others see. Things have changed. It doesn’t matter like before the things you keep harping and whining about.
Your passive aggressive approach is I’m sure due in part to your not understanding things.
“I would do it if he was in November 2016. Won’t happen, but I absolutely would if he were...”
So, we have a bet? If Trump is still in the race, as anything but a Democrat, in November of 2016 the $50 to Free Republic comes from you. If not, then it comes from me.
We do.
He’s leading in national polls because the MSM has determined that he is the fall guy to set up to lose to Hillary. He is either willingly or unwillingly a patsy.
OK :)
There you are! I hadn’t seen you on the Trump threads. Keep it up, you’re doing a great job! I haven’t seen such dedication and persuasiveness since pissant got the zot.
See! Isn’t he great? He’s doing an awesome job convincing people to “not” vote for DT. Dontcha think? (WINK, WINK)
Sarah is unbelievably awesome and a true hero, not to mention a national treasure. On another note pissant was zotted?
Except he didn’t turn millions into billions.
When Trump finally got around to running, he was the most original personality to do so, and the regulars are apoplectic
“Trump is NOT a TEA Party conseravtive.”
You mean like the other politicians that pretended they were TEA party conservatives. Until they got in office?
Otherwise,Trump never claimed to be a TEA Party conservative that i am aware of?
Trump is not a severe conservative like Romney and yet, somehow he is 100 time better. For a fake conservative he sure is SERIOUSLY nailing repeatedly conservative issues?
By the way to all the anti-tumpeteers we get it..Trump is not a conservative,k.
All i can say is don’t vote for him?
Had Trump not entered the race Jeb ‘illegal lover’ Bush would have likely been the nomination?
"Making excuses for your candidate gets you nowhere in defending his liberal ideology. It just makes you look desperate and weak. But considering you are attempting to defend a liberal in a conservative forum I can understand your desperation."
I keep trying to explain to you folks in flyover country that Trump is not an ideologue. Here in New York he is better characterized as agnostic. He is NOT of the two prevailing political machines. Cuomo and Koch were from the (D) machine, Rockefeller and Pataki from (R). He, like many of us who hate them both, are in turn hated by both.
It's an example of that very old adage, 1/3 are (D)ummies, 1/3 are (R)ats, and 1/3 are small "i" independent. And this is because of the nature of those two political containers, their litmus tests, their track record, their failings.
Believe what you want, but Trump is not a member of either species. And I really do believe that this is his strength. It is a feature, and not a bug, particularly in this election.
Just go “patsy” yourself you dolt...
"This is all about Trump attempting to take the Trump brand global like Nike and Coca-Cola without having to spend a dime. Trump has been all over the map. Pro-Choice; scolded Romney for his harsh anti-immigration stance; has given wads of cash to the Clintons, Pelosis’, has favored a single-payer plan; and has “evolved” on just about everything else.” While I must say I like his rhetoric and his take-no-prisoners attitude, he is unelectable on account of his super high negatives and the high percentage of voters who would definitely not vote for him. In short, he is taking us all for a shipload of fools. In some ways, he is making it harder for the likes of Ted Cruz to move to the top."
It's a free country ( for now ) and you can believe what you want, except for that last bit.
When you say something like that you are just beating around the bush and avoiding saying: "Offering another choice other than my guy is bad". That is an arrogant establishment position that has been used for example by the stupid party (R)epublicrats to scapegoat Perot for their loss in 1992, and to avoid accepting personal responsibility.
It sounds to me like you would be comfortable, like Bush or Jeb, of having your own pretend-primary coronation as long as your guy was the presumptive nominee. The distasteful thing is that some people actually believe our votes belong to them in the first place and that they would receive them if only there was no spoiler in there to ruin their party.
If you in fact are a Cruz supporter ( and I happen to like him very much ) then you are actually doing him a dis-service. It reminds me of that string of calls from the (R) dwarfs demanding Trump get out of the race when he spoke about Mexicans, and then McCain. "How dare you run!" I noted then that Cruz was NOT one of the dwarfs to do that. Perry, Graham, Bush, Rubio and a few others were.
Some people are their candidates' own worst enemy.
I’d be all for Trump if I can get myself to believe he is electable. But given the nationally high percentage of those who will definitely not vote for him, I think we must follow the Buckley principle. We elect the most conservative and the one who could win. In my opinion that leaves out Trump. Of those still standing I would like Cruz to capture the nomination. Absolute No to Bush, Kasich, Graham
"Why is Trump plan A? We have 16 candidates already who aren't Democrats in and the primary hasn't started yet. Why do we have to let the media dictate this primary before it even started?"
Because you have to get someone into the White House before anything can happen in the first place. That means they must overcome the 250+ electoral vote advantage that the (D)ummycrats have just by showing up in November 2016. None of the others has the "gravitas" to get any more than the 170 to 200 that are automatically in our column.
The rest of your post proves you have no understanding of the electoral map. You must be very young and still under the illusion that each Presidential election is a coin flip and that the demographics of +100 million population increase since 1980 has somehow been a push.
2012
Dumbo == 332 ... 65,915,796 ( 51.1% )
Romney = 206 ... 60,933,500 ( 47.2% )
What do you have to offer as far as changing that most recent result? Which of these purple states can any of the 16 other candidates flip: MI, PA, WI, IN, IA, OH, FL, NC, CO, VA, NM, NV. Those twelve are the entire ballgame. Which ones does your wishful guy put in play? They need at least half of them!
NOTE: Romney only managed to flip TWO of them: IN and NC ( just barely ) for 26 electoral votes. The rest of the electoral difference between McCain ( 173 ) versus Romney ( 206 ) came from redistricting from the 2010 census where "blue" states mostly lost electoral votes and "red" states mostly gained.
Your position is exactly that of a DUmmy troll who is egging on the (R)epublicrats to remain the stupid party and demand establishment defined "electability" and litmus test purity to ensure yet another defeat. And that defeat will likely be in the last fair election we shall ever see.
So which is it Nick? Gargantuan naiveté? Suicide pact purity? Enemy trolling?
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.