If Trump's Campaign Collapses, It'll Be For One Of These 6 Reasons

Townhall.com ^ | August 29, 2015 | John Hawkins

[Sybeck1]

What are the six reasons that will cause Jeb to collapse?

[Impy]

Perot didn’t want to win, he wanted to make sure Bush lost.

[Taxman]

I posted on two other Trump threads, and have combined and edited them for this thread:

Donald Trump is the enema the Republican Party needs! And, to a lesser degree, Democrats as well.

He is shaking the Republicrat establishment up, and rousing the American “Silent Majority” like no other prominent politician has done since Ronald Reagan.

There were roughly 100,000,000 otherwise eligible American citizens who did not vote in 2012, for many different reasons.

Those are the voters that need to be energized to get off their asses and vote in 2016.

Trump seems to be speaking to and energizing them.

This is exciting! Please pass the popcorn!

I am thoroughly enjoying the HUGE discomfort Trump is causing the “Inside the Evil Beltway Establishment Poobahs!

Bravo Zulu! Donald! Keep up the GREAT work!

[C. Edmund Wright]

Then SADLY, you will wind up with JEB, HILLARY or PLUGS!!!

I do not understand this kind ^^ of dark delusional fantasy. I fully and totally reject - as absurd - as vacuous - as emotional clap trap - your assertion. It's a straw dog, a false choice - two tactics that those with no intellectual basis always reach for.

If at some point it becomes Trump or Jeb - then we can have this discussion (and in which case I'm all about Trump). Until then, don't waste my time with false choices.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I don’t disagree with any of what you said. FTR, unofficial record, my biggest and most significant ghost work was for on air commentary, humor, analogies, etc.

[C. Edmund Wright]

no, it was the ramblings of a foolish old man.....I was on to McCain back in 92 -statistically it’s a sure bet I was at least 8 years ahead of you on that and probably 16 years ahead of you on that.

There are 3-4 Freepers who know....you’re not in their class. Truth does not require the validation of the ignorant.

[grey_whiskers]

Yes, I vaguely remember you as a troll from an election cycle or two back.

About McCain? I remember his first selling out the POWs and (with Kerry) helping cover up the signs of left-behind downed American flyers.

Nor do I care for cliques, on FR or elsewhere; I am not impressed by sycophants, toadies, and lampreys. (Yes, I've seen your articles. You strike me as a political gossip columnist; which role is itself symptomatic of a squishy, liberal mindset: typical of, say, the "chattering classes" in Tom Clancy's Executive Orders. I form my own analyses.)

[C. Edmund Wright]

(Yes, I've seen your articles. You strike me as a political gossip columnist; which role is itself symptomatic of a squishy, liberal mindset: typical of, say, the "chattering classes" in Tom Clancy's Executive Orders. I form my own analyses.)

Now you are lying your sorry sagging fanny off.....no one who's read my stuff could come to that conclusion - unless they were stuck somewhere in the 50 IQ range. Then again, maybe that is you. Maybe you're not smart enough to form your own analyses. Prepare to see some of my cutting edge stuff AGAINST the chattering classes: stuff you didn't do.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You strike me as a political gossip columnist; which role is itself symptomatic of a squishy, liberal mindset: typical of, say, the "chattering classes"

I do get satisfaction of shaming the ignorant with their own words of today juxtaposed (look it up) against my words from long ago......showing who is ahead of the curve and who is still way behind it. Maybe I shouldn't but some posters just need to have their fannies handed to them publicly. What you are about to see if that I was four plus years ahead of the curve on Trump and the chattering classes...and that I was slamming McCain years ago - thus making your comment above absurd, vacuous, asinine and as wrong as possible.

[grey_whiskers]

By *articles* I meant here on FR.

Incidentally -- it just struck me while out today, what you meant by saying you were "on to" McCain back in 1992: since I had earlier snarked that the Presidential candidate you were affiliated with, was McCain: you were refuting that.

On that point, OK. I stand corrected as to the sarcasm, you didn't work for McCain. But the phrasing of your reply made it sound like you were trying to play "inside baseball" in response.

As for lying: no, I'm quite capable of telling the truth. I had never seen your books, only your FR stuff.

I'll take a look at the books when I get a chance; thanks for taking the time to post the links.

Don't necessarily expect me to fatten your wallet by buying them.