Posted on 02/11/2016 8:53:26 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Trump is conservative enough.
Hung up on a label, indeed. Months ago, I ran a poll here at FR.. "Would you vote for Trump if he was running as a Democrat?"
No real surpise - many FReepers would indeed vote for a Democrat. And why not? It's clear the (R) monkeys we've sent to Congress are little to no better than the Dems. It's just one Uniparty anyway, right?
Anti Obama. . . . Except when he voted for Obama.
Hmmm...careful what ya pray for they say...????
***
Another one said something like...you can’t handle the truth....????
***
*****
Well pilgrim...we’re gonna find out!!!!!
***
Dick.G: AMERICAN!
aka: Gunny G
@Planet WTF!
*****
I, and most of my friends, are voting for Trump. The media hates him, and we hate the media, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Look now you are trying to change the subject because you are not getting the outcome you want. Every four years somebody has to face disappointment.
This is very interesting coming from Steven Moore, head economist for Heritage and one of the biggest open border,free traitors in DC. If you read far enough, you will see he is pushing Cruz. “Ted Cruz has the best shot at dethroning Trump. If Cruz wins South Carolina it’s looking like a two-man horserace. Cruz has the best tax plan by a mile.”
I am stunned at how many of these amnesty whores support Cruz. And NO, Cruz’s tax plan is NOT the best.
FYI
Cruz, Rubio, Trump...what they said about Trade & Guns in their announcement speech. Stunning comparison. http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3395582/posts?page=136#136
And have you been given the gift of discerning of spirits? I believe it was Cruz who said he wants to rule the world - not Donald Trump.
I’m really not that disappointed. On another thread, someone just changed the question on me and asked if I would vote for Cruz if he was running as a Democrat?
Honestly? I said yes. Yes I would.
Neither Trump or Ted is perfect. But either one will do. I hope.
Oh, Woofie, let me straighten you out. Trump fully supported Romeny in 2012. That’s a fact. He only said he thought that Obama might be a cheerleader and bring this country together. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts, for they are bogus.
Trump doesn’t need to ask permission from congress to enforce an immigration policy that’s already in place. He just needs them to not obstruct him. Would any Republican congressman or senator with a hope of getting reelected oppose him?
Trump doesn’t need to ask permission to build a wall on the southern border that’s already been voted on and approved by congress except to ask congress to appropriate the money for it. Would any Republican congressman or senator with a hope of getting reelected deny him the funding?
He’s promised to get rid of illegals and he can do it under laws already in place. All he has to do is insist on enforcement of e-verify and harshly punish businesses that employ illegals. Watch them leave on their own when they can’t get jobs or work under the table.
Here’s where he saves the states despite their protestations. All he has to do is tell the states they’ll receive no welfare or medicaid funding until they weed their enrollments of illegal immigrants, including their dependents. The choice is protecting illegals in violation of existing federal immigration laws, or money. What choice will they make? Will they say NO to Uncle Sugar?
By the same token, if he tells the sanctuary cities that they’ll receive no more federal funding until they start complying with existing immigration laws, what will the cities do? Choose sanctuary policy or federal money? See above.
I saw on Drudge recently that the number of sanctuary cities now number more than 300.
Many illegals run afoul of the law. When someone has a police contact via arrest and they can’t prove legal resident status, you deport them, or hold them for trial then decide whether to imprison or deport them. Do you think the police and/or courts will hesitate to get rid of a problem the easiest way possible, knowing their federal funding will be cut off if they don’t enforce existing federal immigration laws? Again, not one additional law is needed to do this.
How many people have been “rounded up” and deported so far? None. They’re leaving on their own because it will no longer be easy to stay. How much money has Trump saved the American taxpayer just by implementing what I’ve outlined above?
We’ll need that big beautiful door on that big beautiful wall just to handle all the traffic headed SOUTH and he hasn’t had to do a thing except insist that EXISTING federal immigration laws be enforced.
He appoints the cabinet heads at DHS and the other agencies that have to do with these laws. Do you think his appointed cabinet heads will NOT enforce the laws as directed?
No tyranny or violations of the constitution required. All we’ve lacked so far is a president with the desire or balls to enforce the law.
Sure, the democrats and Leftists will holler and stamp their feet, but they won’t pay out of their own pockets to protect their interest groups, aka future democrat voters.
As an added bonus, they can even claim that it’s not their fault, a position all politicians are quite comfortable with.
If Trump were elected president and did nothing except what I’ve outlined above, would his presidency still not be considered a success?
Trump 2016!
What are you talking about? Congress has already moved to the left. I can guarantee you one thing - they won’t work with Cruz - they will thwart him at every move. He won’t get his agenda through - he doesn’t have the clout.
Everyone reading this forum knows that your statement is patently false.
Why do you continue to show yourself as being either grossly ignorant, or an outright liar?
Do you really suffer so badly from TDS that you’re willing to destroy your credibility here on Free Republic?
I can understand that you favor another candidate not named Donald Trump but what you’re doing showing up on every Trump thread spouting obvious falsehoods is doing nothing more than exposing your dishonesty or ignorance or both.
From the article:
“In February 1980 the Republican establishment said that a staunch conservative Hollywood actor could never be president and he won two landslide elections. Trump isn’t Reagan — but he’s one of the most talented retail politicians in modern times. For nine months everyone has been underestimating this man, saying that he was surely going to go away. He’s not going away. He’s rising and proving his critics on the left and right dead wrong. That’s Reaganesque.”
Hmmm, as usual, you say it’s false, but you don’t back up your claim. It’s all nothing more than mainstream media-fueled hype.
Well, I don't have a candidate yet. But I am trying to defend my country against a dangerous liberal socialist. He's a Democrat and he's the worst of all 17 Republican candidates.
Why do you want a candidate for president who is completely unvetted. The media has covered up for him, but do you think that's going to last forever?
I am not sure about Cruz, in my research of his past history I find some very good things and there are also some things that trouble me. Trump is the one I am more sure about; reminiscent of the French Revolution with an American twist. I want the American Revolution, not a French Revolution in the name of America.
the U.S. has no clue about the candidates real background.Yea, good find! Trump has emerged from living in total secrecy for decades. No one ever heard anything about him until last year when he announced...< /sarcasm>
Whose the idiot in that picture?
Well never fear Trump is not running as a Dem and we sure don’t see the Dems putting forth an agenda like Trumps or we would all vote Democrat. :-)
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.