Bon Voyageee! See ya in Saint Looey, Screwy!
Posted on 01/07/2016 10:27:25 AM PST by Cats Pajamas
Just seems more and more to me that he is running interference for Bill and Hill. I am getting closer and closer to crossing Trump of my list.
Lol, even if that’s what you meant, you would still be wrong, since Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien, a GOP rep, made national news attacking Hillary over that very subject this week.
Serious conservatives know that Trump is a charlatan. Congratulations on a bold and honest statement.
Email scandal is what is more likely to bring her down.
Yes, and that AFTER Trump opened the attack against Hillary and Bill.
She’s a Clinton, so it won’t. Didn’t we go through this in the 90’s?
I obviously won’t vote for him, but we need to be accurate, Trump said that in 2008. If it happened 17 years ago, why is Trump mad about it now and wasn’t then? Why should Cruz be attacking Hillary for enabling her rapist husband now, since it happened 17 years ago?
Okay, I’m being obtuse. This is really what I’m trying to say: Cruz is blamable for not bringing up this issue and Trump is great because he’s talking about something that happened 17 years ago. This is how you draw the distinction between the two. But, if we’re going to bring up things that happened 17 years ago, does that mean we can bring up everything Trumps said in the past 17 years ago, that Trump had only great things to say about the Clintons, gave them a lot of money, etc.?
Then, what if Clinton just starts playing the victim card? She can’t because she’s on records saying this and that. Trump’s also on record isn’t he.
What’s really happening is you just think that distinction makes Cruz look bad to people on FR who haven’t made up their minds. It doesn’t matter that what you wrote was inaccurate, and you knew it, you thought it makes Trump look better so you wrote it.
Trump is playing defense. He is adopting a defensive strategy.
Defense is a losers' game. Its only utility is to prevent advancement of the opposition.
Ted Cruz has for the past 26 years spent his life working in the legal system to do more than prevent leftism from advancing -- Cruz has actively functioned to advance conservatism. His record and history show it.
During that same 26 years, Trump switched parties three times and only 8 years ago was a Hillary-loving Democrat who supported McCain (Obama failing to name Hillary as VP may have had something to do with it). He found the Republican party good enough to re-join right when it became the party of McCain and Romney. That was the same time the party left me and I daresay most conservatives.
Of all times to take an offensive strategy, it is during the party's primaries. At this point, we can only guess as to who the Democrat opponent will be. Exit, don't you remember this time eight years ago, when Obama was but a tiny blip on the radar and all conservatives were shrieking, "Anybody but Hillary!" While allowing the nomination of (up to that point) the single most fraudulent "conservative Republican" in presidential history, John McCain???
Yes, but remember, Obama doesn’t like the Clintons, would prefer Bidin to follow him.
The expression "It was the cat's pajamas!" was in vogue, I believe, in the early 1900s, meant to mean the very best of something. Kind of like another expression of the same era meaning the same thing, "the lobster's dress shirt." Driving that Maserati was the lobster's dress shirt!
Of course, lobsters don't wear dress shirts unless ... well, you think of something.
Like the Republicans did in 2014. Yeah, we need more of that.
Once again your conclusion about me is a fig newton of your imagination.
The only money I have donated this cycle is to.....wait for it....TED CRUZ.
Not once. Twice.
Hillary has brought back from the dead the whole topic of the war on women, as a current campaign issue.
Ted would be perfectly correct to bring up her hypocrisy in doing so, but he has chosen not to do so.
Trump has brought up Hillary’s hypocrisy very publicly, and neutralized her by saying how she enabled her husband to attack the women charging him with sexual assault.
Ted said he would stick to Hillary stands, and elected not to go there.
And no other Republican has followed Trump’s lead. Crickets.
So when the OP said Trump was a Clinton decoy, I asked why he felt that way. After all, it is Trump who is relentlessly and publicly attacking Hillary in every speech and interview.
And the OP has chosen not to respond to me.
Once again your conclusion about me is a fig newton of your imagination.
The only money I have donated this cycle is to.....wait for it....TED CRUZ.
Not once. Twice.
Hillary has brought back from the dead the whole topic of the war on women, as a current campaign issue.
Ted would be perfectly correct to bring up her hypocrisy in doing so, but he has chosen not to do so.
Trump has brought up Hillary’s hypocrisy very publicly, and neutralized her by saying how she enabled her husband to attack the women charging him with sexual assault.
Ted said he would stick to Hillary stands, and elected not to go there.
And no other Republican has followed Trump’s lead. Crickets.
So when the OP said Trump was a Clinton decoy, I asked why he felt that way. After all, it is Trump who is relentlessly and publicly attacking Hillary in every speech and interview.
And the OP has chosen not to respond to me.
Actually, no Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien has been hounding Hillary and the Dems about this particular issue since at least 1999, and actually previously asked Hillary about it in 2007:
http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3221/Katherine-Prudhomme-OBrien-American-Heroine.aspx
No doubt. I think I detect the reek from here.
Trump is publicly attacking Hillary and Bill Clinton.
How is that defensive?
It is obviously offensive, so much so that the rest of the GOP will not join him in the attack on Bill Clinton, nor on the attack of Hillary's physical abilities or precarious legal position regarding the email server situation.
Maybe it is offensive to them.
I am well aware of Katherine Prudhomme, who is also a Freeper.
She asked Gore about Juanita in 1999 and Hillary in 2000 as well.
The current time was after Trump started in on Hillary and Bill, and it takes nothing away from Katherine’s courage in confronting the evil Hillary.
But he is a Democrat, and he is not going to be party to take Hillary out. And remember, he would have a lot to lose, too. First, it would reflect badly on his administration. More importantly, if he did that, it would open the door to him potentially having to answer legally for one of his scandals.
That very excellent and clever card is a great way to work off of that investment. He's already long-established his "brand."
Remember please that Trump's fame is purchased and crafted, it always has been. Bestowing credibility on someone because of a brand they have promoted for a decade is bad business. The idea that, "Well, he's a billionaire, that's proof enough that he knows what he's doing!" in the face of Trump's documented past political inclinations, is based on media imagery directed by The Donald. Otherwise no one would know his name or face.
Just remember it, because truth is important in perceiving the best actions.
bttt for great justice
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.