So you didn’t attend school. That explains it.
I shook Ronald Reagan’s hand in 1990. Funny, I didn’t feel the urge to lambast him for having been a longtime member of the democrat party.
I defended a geek in 1999 with the name of Bill Gates III. He was a nerd first and considered politics as irrelevant to his business. The Clinton justice department taught him a lesson and today he’s a good little liberal who is happy to donate to liberals.
When you’re a big deal who becomes visible on a national scale, the liberal jackals come to eat you and so you smile and entertain them in order to survive to fight another day.
But you won’t see that.
And you also won’t see the telltale signs of Donald Trump’s true and unequivocal patriotism that are cast in concrete and in quiet acts over the decades. You could see these things, but you choose not to.
Now you have nothing to offer to this thread nor to me. Go away and don’t post to me anymore.
Yep, Gates learned to play the game or get sued out of business.
But it's more fun to the deranged FReepers to disregard what business owners/leaders have to do these days to succeed/survive.....and then complain about crony capitalism.
My favorite argument for Trump: He was forced to forfeit his principles to continue to make billions.
Forced to give to Reid, Pelosi , Emmanuel, Clinton, and even Weiner because 1 or 2 billion just not enough.
By the way, how much has the billionaire donated to Vets from his own coffers?
No worries, I won't post to you again, since you don't seem to be interested in reality.
You make an excellent point. There is, most unfortunately, a major confusion among many Conservatives, as to how to define a Conservative--or how to define the Left/Right dichotomy.
A measure that defines the divide in terms of commitment to a particular people--as for example the rooted American people, or the landed class in 1789 France--and those who have antagonistic interests, can be just as valid as adherence to a litany of stands on issues that may or may not be recognized as immediately relevant to one's human commitments--to the interests one wants to conserve.
Most of those litany of stands, may not be seen as necessary to sort, by the individual committed to his own people, absent some focusing factor. This does not make a rejection of his standing by the people to whom he gives his loyalty, a rational rejection.
If Americans who want Donald Trump to take stronger ideological stands on certain issues, would first accept his basic loyalty; and follow up by urging his consideration of why those stands are important for the pursuit of the interests of the rooted American population; they might help bring us all better together.
This endless harping on what he did years ago, when he was focused on his personal business, not saving the American heritage, is counter-productive.