Is Donald Trump shifting to a "General Election" stance? Seems to take more shots at HRC, Obama

11/30/15 | sff

[SoFloFreeper]

Asking fellow FREEPers...I follow Trump on twitter, and see the stories here on FR.

I seem to sense that DT thinks he is in a good enough position NOW on the primary front that he can now aim at the Demon Rats.

I see more criticism of Shrillary and the Narcissist than I did in the beginning of his campaign, when he seemed more obsessed with taking down his fellow Republicans.

Opinions?

[deport]

Trump upcoming events:

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/events/

- Tuesday, December 01, 2015 -

Waterville Valley, New Hampshire Rally

White Mountain Athletic Club

7:00 PM

********

- Tuesday, December 01, 2015 -

Waterville Valley, New Hampshire Rally

White Mountain Athletic Club

7:00 PM

*************

- Wednesday, December 02, 2015 -

Manassas, Virginia Rally

Prince William County Fairgrounds

7:30 PM

******

- Friday, December 04, 2015 -

Raleigh, North Carolina Rally

Dorton Arena

7:30 PM

*******

- Saturday, December 05, 2015 -

Spencer, Iowa Rally

Clay County Regional Events Center

11:00 AM

*********

- Saturday, December 05, 2015 -

Davenport, Iowa Rally

The Mississippi Valley Fairgrounds

2:00 PM

[Balding_Eagle]

Notice how hard Trump is beginning to campaign? Even harder than just a few weeks ago, as if that is possible.

I think he sees that now is the time to put everyone else away, and he is begining to run what might be the final sprint.

This, well before the beginning of the primaries.

[DouglasKC]

Yup, watching his speech...going after them, talking general election issues more then before.

[DouglasKC]

Great stream here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mq5hrUDoYo

[varon]

I think the nominee will be either Cruz, Rubio, or Trump.

My bet would be on Cruz, Rubio or Christie...........

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

HRC is convinced that victory is hers! I’m afraid the American people feel the same way.

I seriously doubt it. Benghazi is pretty bad, and somebody might make the point that a lot more people than the four who died were in mortal peril while Hillary, like Obama, went home and was off the grid. And Hillary ignored pleas from “Chris,” as she referred to Ambassador Stevens, for more security. She might claim that there was no money for that in the State budget - but Hillary and Bill reportedly now have control of about a quarter of a billion (with a “b”) dollars which she is not overly transparent about the provenance of. That would have bought quite a bit of added security in Benghazi, if she had been alert to the situation there. And if she had been a dedicated patriot.

Besides, foreign governments paid fabulous sums to her partner, Bill Clinton, and contributed handsomely to the Clinton Foundation, of which she was a principal. And did so in violation of the anticorruption provision in the Constitution that

Article 1 Section 9:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state

That prohibition does not have an exception for a charitable foundation (unless approved by Congress), and should certainly apply to the handsome emoluments paid to Bill.

State legislators, especially proud supporters of “Campaign Finance Reform,” have no excuse not to exclude violators of the Constitution’s anticorruption clause above from being named on their ballots - certainly not on Row A or Row B of those ballots. Under the Constitution, the states “appoint” their Electors under the direction of their individual legislatures; SCOTUS would have no claim to any authority at all over the elections of Electors in the first instance, and no cause to reject a state provision to enforce a Constitutional good-government provision even if it arrogated the authority to itself. Even allowing the slate of electors on the ballot but burying it on Line E of the ballot would be extremely damaging, including to the other Democrats on the ticket.

The Republicans have a target-rich environment in a Hillary candidacy.

[Theodore R.]

You are TOO informed, unlike your compatriots. I am impressed with your knowledge but not your understanding of the American people.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I am impressed with your knowledge but not your understanding of the American people.

Yes. Well, notwithstanding the success of the Democrats with the ignorant/arrogant, Republicans have won about as many elections as they have lost. It has been very difficult for either party to win 3 elections in a row; sitting VPs only get elected if the sitting POTUS is highly regarded - and not always even then.

Obamacare is a train wreck for more people than it has helped; it is overpriced and manipulative, and its deductibles are so high that referring to it as “insurance” requires scare quotes. Recovery from the Great Recession gives a whole new meaning to R.I.N.O., and “General Motors is alive and ben Laden is dead” rings pretty hollow with ISIS on the move. And most Americans see no reason to love open borders.

The Republican who loses this election goes down in political infamy even worse than Mitt Romney. Especially with Mitt’s interaction with Candy Crowley as a template for what not to do . . .

My initial reaction to Trump throwing his hat in the ring was dismay. But it is plain that if he wins the nomination he will win or go down swinging. Exactly what Mitt did not do.

Wire service journalism (aka “the media” has been heavily biased against Republicans basically since Hoover. If MSM bias truly were all powerful, no Republican would have ever won any election in my lifetime.