Posted on 01/21/2016 9:18:48 PM PST by rightistight
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Thursday there's nothing wrong with a little deal-making to get things done.
"You know what? There's a point at which: Let's get to be a little establishment," he told about 1,500 people at a rally at the Las Vegas South Point Resort and Casino. "We've got to get things done folks, OK? Believe me, don't worry. We're going to make such great deals."
It was an effort by the billionaire developer to draw contrasts with Ted Cruz, his top rival in the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses. The author of "The Art of the Deal" suggested that Cruz, largely boxed out of Senate deal making circles, can't operate effectively in office.
"Guys like Ted Cruz will never make a deal because he's a strident guy," Trump told a crowd of about 1,500 people at a rally at the Las Vegas South Point Resort and Casino.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What should a president give up to get someone on the Supreme Court?
More importantly, I don't want Cruz on the Supreme Court. Why do you want him on the Supreme Court?
That is a statement Nick, not an answer.
So I will answer it for you.
Every Cruz supporter here would support a deal that Trump would have to make
to get Cruz the votes needed to be confirmed to the Supreme Court
if nominated.
Trump said about the US Senate: “There’s something wrong there. And I can tell you, they like me, those guys. And there’s nothing wrong with that, folks. We’ve got to make deals!”
They all love Trump, according to Trump. Everyone loves Trump, according to Trump. Iowans love him, Christians love him, gun owners love him, Democrats love him because he gave them money, Hillary did love him when he was not running against her, she went to one of his three weddings, the Clinton Foundation loved his money he gave, Putin loves him, etc..
Bullsh*, Lucy and the football, Lucy and the football..
Ted Cruz is opposed by the right people.
No, Reagan was not perfect. But he's a lot better than have had since then. Okay, back to your Reagan bashing.
Trump is a Rorschasch candidate of course it’s ok for him to work with (not defeat) the establishment.
“Where was Donald when a County Clerk from rural Kentucky was sent to jail for obeying the law, where was he?”
HE SAID SHE SHOULD LOSE HER JOB because homosexual marriage is the law.
He already owes so many donors. He’ll have so much to deliver to them, and this is just January. Things won’t be HIS way, they will be the DONOR CLASS and LOBBYISTS’ way.
So, I say take that deal you are talking about and shove it. Is that the answer you were looking for.
Secure the border. Keep Muslims out.nationalize healthcare
Start a trade war.Continue to decimate the economy
Continue to over spend.
Yep we have a lot to look forward to
I don’t know what the price would be.
Higher than most since Cruz is not well liked in the Senate.
It would depend on what’s being dealt away.
That is a lot of faith in one guy’s ego
Please read twice or more, so you understand.
Bashing? Reagan was saddled with Tip "Dead On Arrival" O'Neil and had to compromise to get things done. Oh, and there was that little amnesty thing.
Reagan was the first president I was able to vote for (and frankly the last president I was excited to vote for) but recounting history is not BASHING Reagan.
Sheesh...unwad your panties.
You are one storage dude.
Pragmatism is all about compromising principles.
And the Founding Fathers were themselves ideologues. As it said in “The Naked Communist” (1958), chapter 12, “We are in an ideological war.”
Lessons both of the frontrunners ought to learn.
“Now I know what it feels like to be in a mass delusion.”
That is what this is - just like the Obama mass delusion.
What proof do you have that Trump is going to secure the border and keep Muslims out. Beyond telling people what they want to hear I have not seen Trump commit a single action that would indicate he is serious about defending the US.
In that, Trump was wrong...it was not the law.
In Kentucky only persons of the opposite sex may enter into marriage. See Elkhorn Coal Corporation v. Tackett, Ky., 49 S.W.2d 571, 573 (1932). Thus in Jones v. Hallahan, Ky., 501 S.W.2d 588 (1973), the court held that the attempted marriage between two women was not a valid marriage since by being of the same sex they were incapable of entering into a “marriage†as the term is defined by common usage. The court concluded that it could find “no constitutional sanction or protection of the right of marriage between persons of the same sex.â€
http://e-archives.ky.gov/Pubs/AG/clerks_guide_marriage_law%281996%29.htm
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.