So did a man named Ronald Reagan.
President Reagan had been a Democrat decades earlier, or prior to 1962. And once a Republican he never voiced continued allegiance to the Democrat Party. Trump said “I probably identify more as Democrat.” in 2004, just 11 year ago. You see the difference, don't you?
It was good in the Clinton years, because of the aftermath of the Reagan years.
If Trump is too stupid to know that the economy benefited because of President Reagan and not the rapist he's too stupid to be president.
What was he going to say; “Nancy, screw you?”
He sent her a hand written note saying that. Why did he have to say anything? Why praise a woman known as one of the worst of the worst when it comes to liberal politics when he did so needlessly and without merit?
By that time, W had let himself be wagged around so much by the Dems, he had lost his 2001-2005 greatness.
And liberals all over America, Trump included, were eager to shout it from the rooftops. Note: This was early 2007; at approximately the same time Trump and other liberals were trashing Bush he was also praising Pelosi. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Like it or not, abortion is the major deciding issue in an election for less than 1% of the population.
That is, without a doubt the most moronic thing you have said. Assuming what you said is true, and it is not as abortion is a Threshold Issue for One in Six American Voters ALL "conservative" candidates should oppose abortion. Trump didn't and only now says he does because he wants the conservative vote. No thanks, flip floppers need not apply.
Since he was willing to pay it himself, where is the complaint? Granted, we all believe huge cuts in federal spending have to be made, but in this case, he was willing to take on the compressibility himself. That takes balls.
Taxing the so-called "rich" is a very popular position among liberals, which is why Trump supports it. It is my suspicion that is why you're okay with it also.
Obama did have such a chance. Had he abandoned is far-left socialist leanings, governed as a right of center - centrist, and not gone further left and pro-Islamic, he would have been seen as a great unifier, as opposed to the worst president in American history.
Why would he abandon the political philosophy that got him to the White House? That makes absolutely no sense? The man was a known socialist whose political career was launched in Bill Ayres' living room. Do you believe this crap you write? If so, you sure learned little in the time you "claim" to have been lurking.
Have a nice day.
Here is my problem with what is happening even now on FR. Everyone is spending all their time slamming every potential Republican candidate, and promising to continue to do so, even through the 2016 general election.
They are forgetting the horrible lesson we still suffer from, from the 2012 election.
The Dem minorities did not elect Barack Obama. Had the socially conservative Americans voted instead of staying home because Romney wasn’t conservative “enough,” Obama would have been sent packing.
Perhaps Romney wasn’t conservative enough to please many of us entirely, but with Romney we would have not had any mass illegal immigration from Mexico.
We would not be about to let Iran develop an fission (or even a fission/fusion) weapon.
Israel would still be a friend.
Rifle ammunition would not be banned, nor would there have been an attempt to do so.
Former US military rifles, such as the M1 Carbine could be re-imported into the US.
US companies would not be sued by the government because their religious beliefs prevented them from paying for abortion-inducing pills.
Obamacare would have been repealed by a Republican President, Senate and House, or absent a repeal, radically de-fnded.
Racial rioters would not have been encouraged.
Our AG would not be a radical woman.
Pacific trade would not be an issue.
Our military would not be headed for its lowest strengths since before WWII.
The 5 Taliban leaders would still be in Gitmo, as would be many others terrorists.
Beau Bergdhal would be dead, in Leavenworth or still living with the savages.
and so many other Obama programs would never have seen the light of day. If anyone has any questions, wait until he forgives all Black college loans, pays Black reparations, and frees “poor” Black drug dealers, and orders federal “monitors” to prevent voter ID in 2016.
Every program Barack Obama has proposed since Jan 20, 2013, and from now on, is thanks in part to conservatives who thought Romney wasn’t conservative “enough”, and sat home on election day.
How many were motivated to do so by leftist radicals posing as conservatives on websites such as FR, who knows?
The bottom line is a trifecta of three truths.
1: The candidate elected President in 2016 will come from either the Dems or the Republicans. A third party candidate would only split the vote, and ensure the Dem gets elected, as Ross Perot did.
2: We can work hard now to get a real conservative nominated but anyone who would not vote for the MORE conservative of the two candidates, no matter who he is, issimply helping a radical leftist get elected .... (and maybe even really trying to do so)
3: Dems are smart. They all work hard to get their individual candidate nominated. If their candidate is not nominated, they unite behind the liberal who is. We don’t.
It’s very simple. The reality is we all work hard for our favorite candidates now to try to get them nominated, and then unite behind the victor no matter who he is.... or we help elect the radical Dem.
In 2012 we didn’t, to the intense pleasure of the Obamanistas and some radicals posing as conservatives. In case you wonder how pervasive this is, it’s no secret Russia and the Dems both have huge disruptor operations working against us and other conservative websites.
We can help decide who wins the 2016 nomination, but if we sit home because the nominated candidate isn’t conservative “enough,” we’re helping put Hillary in the White House.
They fooled us in 2012. Will they get away with it again?