Posted on 08/05/2015 12:02:43 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
".......This writer will not attempt to dissuade the Trump-o-philes from their ardor. If one’s idea of a Joe-Six-pack-cares-about-guys-like-me-populist is an arrogant brat in grownup clothing, who pulled himself up by the multimillion-dollar bootstraps he received and ultimately inherited from his daddy, a guy who builds luxury apartments that, one suspects, few of his supporters could ever dream of affording, then, by all means, vote for the guy.
What this writer can do is show Trump’s supporters – and make it impossible for them to say, should this life-imitates-Elmer-Gantry snake oil salesman become president, that they didn’t know – what they, and the United States of America, would be getting.
First and most important, Donald Trump is not a Republican. Nor is he a Democrat. Donald Trump is a businessman and an opportunist. And would be, if his supporters get their way, the first Republican president who, at least as of April 26, 2011, has given most of his financial support to Democrats:
The real estate mogul and “Celebrity Apprentice” host has made more than $1.3 million in donations over the years to candidates nationwide, with 54 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal disclosure records.
Does that sound like someone committed to Republican values, let alone conservatives values? Not exactly the Koch Brothers, especially when one looks at just who some of these recipients of Trump largess were, such stalwart Republicans as:
Harry Reid
Rahm Rmanuel
John F. Kerry
Charlie Rangel
Chuck Schumer
Teddy Kennedy
Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton? Well, one hopes that he will refrain from contributing to Clinton 2016 if and when he finds himself running against her. On the other hand, don’t assume that he won’t. Could be bad for business, post-election, if Hillary wins...................."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“A New York/New Jersey/Florida businessman/real estate developer felt a need to give to both parties? Man, that’s breaking news! LOL”
It is, kind of. He really didn’t have to give much to Republicans in that part of the country to get his building permits approved (other than Chrisie, what other Republican is even there). The fact that he gave an equal amount says a lot, at least to me.
Only Trump (maybe Cruz) is credible on (illegal) immigration. He has made that the center piece of his campaign. Without a president Trump, US conservatism, (and US conservatives) will be on the ash heap of history. Let the left legalize 30-60 million "new" Marxist voters and it all over folks. The battle is joined and only Trump can win it for us. D's know this also so Trump will get a lot of democratic support too.
The only issue that matters this election is immigration and Trump owns that issue. Nothing else matters.
Just as pointedly unfair as the unfair attacks on Walker’s economy in Wisconsin....Throwing a few facts into an opinion piece and calling it “settled science”...
“What this writer can do is show Trump’s supporters – and make it impossible for them to say, should this life-imitates-Elmer-Gantry snake oil salesman become president, that they didn’t know – what they, and the United States of America, would be getting.”
A smarmy hit piece designed to “inform” Repubs about Trump. How about a similar article about Hellary and the KKKlinton crime family? He could KKKlinton supporters about why companies and organizations all around the world would pay multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for “speeches” by Hell and Bill. How they use the KKKlinton foundation as a money laundering vehicle for bribery and influence peddling. Lots of cash goes in but little comes out. How about an article on the KKKlinton lies about Benghazi, server gate, file gate? How about Hellary making false criminal charges about people in the white house travel office so that her chronies could get their jobs? Shouldn’t Hellary supporters be informed of all this and 100 more interesting tidbits.
Trump is not being vetted? The attempts to drag out 20+ year old divorce comments from his ex or highlight when he contributed to ‘opposing’ political parties, or publishing some woman’s story about her discomfort at his reaction due to her breastfeeding during a deposition is NOT being vetted? Having his financials discussed and *challenged* is not being vetted?
Every day it’s a new “Trump Bad” story and some particular situation in his past and you want to say he’s not being vetted? You want to say Cruz is being scrutinized to that extent?
Clearly you have a huge bias against Trump because you think he hasn’t been a pure Republican long enough for you. Reagan wasn’t a pure Republican starting out and Churchill wasn’t Churchill starting out. We like to think we can get people to evolve into a Conservative position if they aren’t already there. I guess no one should really try that should they? If they aren’t conservative from day one they are just not good enough for you. BTW Trump does not maintain he has been a Conservative all along. I guess that’s his biggest sin. You have no use for people who may change their thinking to fall more closely in line with a Conservative mindset.
Your ‘perfect Conservative’ act is getting really old.
And you make that assumption because why?
OK, I'm sold!
If he only sent all his money to the RNC weasels or Roves Super PAC. Then all would be good I guess. I mean those a card carrying Republicans.
Frank Luntz had a focus group and there was a guy who was saying exact same thing - Trump supported this, Trump donated to this, yada yada yada. This lady simply replies, I don’t care, I don’t care - getting louder every time. You are wasting your keystrokes telling us what he was for, who he donated to... Most know that. And don’t care.
Another way to put your chart:
Trump Registration -- President (Party) Republican (Before 1999) -- Clinton (D) 1993+ Reform Party (1999–2001) -- Clinton (D) Democratic (2001–09) -- Bush (R) Republican (2009–11) -- Obama (D) Independent (2011–12) -- Obama (D) Republican (2012-present) -- Obama (D)
So since 1993, Trump has REFUSED to be the same political party as the sitting President of any party. Does that not imply something about his independence of thought?
First off, we have a Republic not a corporation. How does that work for you, this business country? Who sits on the board of directors, etc?
And if pointing out Trump's past is "bashing," why is he supposed to be omitted from a vetting process?
I am reminded of the phrases posted on FR that went something like, “Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard”, and “Scott Brown for President.”
Reagan had years of strong political thought, developed over decades.
Trump is Jesse Ventura.
The ONLY thing Trump could do as President is cut deals—which is a lost art in DC.
But anyone who thinks a New York prep school boy is a conservative needs to step away from the bong.
We can enjoy the show, but understand that it’s a show.
As to your talking about Wisconsin's economy, read this:
From Free Fall to Free Markets: How Wisconsin Turned Itself Around
The story about raping his wife not withstanding. I guess you missed that one.
I didn’t miss it.
His wife was singing a different tune back then.
Did you miss that?
You’re implying the Donald is not getting his typical eneMedia rectal. Not true.
“How can a distinction be made during the general election between Hillary and Trump?”
Uh, let’s see. Mmmmm. Well, Ms. Clinton is a criminal, incompetent wife of a disgraced former President who has lived her life on the public tit, allying herself with Muslims and crooks around the World.
Trump is a successful entrepreneur and business man with a taste for the ladies and strong opinions about things I care about.
But, if it is a puzzle for you, then perhaps more study will help.
That's why he's winning.
What does that even mean?
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.