Posted on 02/10/2011 7:50:02 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
So we can conclude that CPAC’s transition into farce is complete?
Trump is an interesting option. He has a ton of experience that would serve America well, were he elected. I’ve heard some other things he said on other shows and I like what I have heard.
The main question, however, is whether he is electable. The donnybrook is about to be on and it will be interesting to see who the DBM chooses for our candidate.
Trump has a major problem that can not be ignored -
He is fantastic at making money, he is a dreadful failure at managing it.
His record on managing his companies is a failure. He has several corporations that have filed bankruptcy, one repeatedly. He is good at starting a business, making flash fast money and then selling it off before he runs it into the ground. If he can’t sell it off, he ends up filing bankruptcy. He runs his businesses on a deficit.
I like Trump as an entertainer but I do NOT want a President who cannot manage. He is on his 3rd wife for goodness sakes.
As for him being conservative anything? There is nothing conservative about Trump, he is the most grandiose man in the USA.
Google his interviews on Bush he did with his socialist buddy Donnie Deutch.
Interesting stuff right there.
He said that! Brilliant
I love it. Hope you're well, Nauti!
But do you think he has the temperament for the job? While he may have more justification for it, he seems at least as ego-driven as the current disaster.
" GOProud's board chairman, Chris Barron, decided he wanted to invite Donald Trump to CPAC.
So, he did.
Today, Trump arrived at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel about 3 p.m. this afternoon, Feb. 10.
Of the invitation, Barron told Metro Weekly, "We invited Trump for a couple of reasons: One, because unlike the boycotters who are undermining CPAC, we wanted to be value-added...
Okay, I won't. In fact, statistically speaking, there is an extremely good likelihood that I am smarter than you. So why don't you save the insults for people who are interested in that sort of drivel, and instead try to discuss things like an adult?
I just saw (rather heard – voice only) him on Fox and Friends (FOX News cable) about 10 minutes ago. And I have to say, for me at least it’s hard NOT to like him. So, sure I like him, I think it would be great to have him in the mix in the run and only adds to my feeling that despite the propaganda of the left that the Republicans have a lot of great and very very interesting candidates to run from Sarah, to Bachmann, Mitt, the two Pauls, et all and now perhaps Trump.
So I think this is good news for the Republicans and add my already peeked interest in the entire matter with Trump in the mix. I liked what he said, and in regards to his CPAC comment that Ron Paul cannot win, well I can sort of understand Trump and his personality giving a punch back while the Paul supporters kept yelling Ron Paul out loud during the time others were trying to give their little speech.
Look – with Trump in the mix this should add to the debate and ideas in the mix. I think it would not only be fun, but exciting and good for the Republicans and America. The only negative comment I would introduce to this question is, I was handed an envelope/package by someone with a bunch of materials in it about making money with your own business/at home type thing and on the cover of the package was Donald Trump and something about the “Trump Network”. So, with that I sort of have some doubts about the entire Trump for America agenda. But I really like the guy and am interested in what he has to say.
See, that's a valid point. Unlike many on here who seem to want a headstrong, "go get 'em" type for President - I don't really want that. I think the President needs to be reined back into his legitimate constitutional role, which will necessarily include the degradation of the power and authority of that office to a subordinate role to Congress. As the branch of government closest to the people, the Congress was intended to wield the most authority of the three branches. The President's job was to be mainly federative - he was to direct our foreign policy (with Congressional oversight) and to be the civilian C-in-C control directing our military efforts in any wars we got into (again, with Congressional oversight). The Presidency was never meant to be "strong."
The fact that so many FReepers seem to be falling all over themselves looking for some sort of messiah-figure (and yes, that means Sarah Palin, for those who can't read between the lines) to step in and be the anti-0bama is, ultimately, a dangerous and extremely non-conservative and anti-constitutional position to be taking. I'd rather have a bland, run-of-the-mill order-taker who fills a suit in the Presidency than someone who has been invested by conservatives with super-duper superhero powers to use the power of a strong Presidency to fix all the things, even if it they're being fixed "our" way.
We don't need a Sulla anymore than we need a Marius.
Ooh, see, that's bad.
The same group that invited Ann Coulter to their convention as headline speaker.
I think people are focusing way too much on this strange little group "GOProud" and that the strange little group enjoys the attention.
See, actually one of the reasons I like Sarah Palin is that her record of governance involves listening to the experts and directing them toward a specific goal/agenda. You see it in her writing, too — she’s not afraid to simply cite (and credit) good ideas and analysis from others rather than having to put a novel spin/take on everything.
As such, it seems to me that she follows Reagan’s wisdom in the sense of (paraphrased) “you can get a lot done if you don’t care who gets the credit”.
Not necessarily. Ironically, I think GOProud serves a vital purpose - that of helping to separate the real conservatives from the sellouts, compromisers, aisle-reachers, and wolves in sheep's clothing.
Let's face it - GOProud is an organisation that basically exists to push the radical gay agenda. Their primary purpose for existing is to push for gay marriage, gay adoption, gays in the military, gay indoctrination in the schools, and anything else gay. They've pretty much said this themselves. They are NOT a group that exists just to push for lower taxes, less spending, etc. whose members also happen to be gay. Their membership may be for all these things, but what makes this group distinct - by its own admission and choice - is that they also seek the imposition of the radical gay agenda onto a largely unwilling country.
That's not conservative - something that a reasonable person will have to admit, even if that person takes the unreasonable position of agreeing with that agenda.
If someone, especially someone who is a "big name," so to speak, someone who, for whatever reason right or wrong carries clout in what they say and do, chooses to use that clout to legitimise this group, then that person can reasonably said to not be conservative, or at least to have some severe flaws in their claims to such.
GOProud fills the role of helping us to know who is a poser, and who is the real thing.
As such, it seems to me that she follows Reagan’s wisdom in the sense of (paraphrased) “you can get a lot done if you don’t care who gets the credit”.
I agree that Sarah Palin herself may be like that - which is good. The problem I'm having is that I think there are too many conservatives who are latching onto her as the "One, True Way" and investing her with way too much worship and devotion. That's a very dangerous attitude to take towards ANYONE, aside from God.
As the primary season begins to take shape next year, Sarah Palin needs to face the same sort of criticisms, testing, investigation, etc. as all the rest of the candidates surely will. She cannot (and WILL NOT) be exempt from it, no matter how much her fan club cries about it. If we are serious about constitutional government, we cannot adopt the "we need a strongman (or strongwoman)" attitude towards our presidential candidates.
Hiya CD! All is well in FL. How are things in NC? Hope you are doing well. ltns.
CPAC polls aren’t what it used to be. Neither Paul nor Trump have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected.
I'm wondering how you know that too. But I do see several internet articles claiming just that. But on the other hand, I wouldn't put it past the Ron Paul kooks to be trying to smear him.
Here is an article, with alledged quotes saying he was pro-choice in the past. Frankly it's hard to imagine Mr. Casino owner shares any traits in common with a social conservative. But he has good ideas on trade and energy.
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.