Posted on 08/29/2015 12:19:18 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says he is leading the GOP race because he represents Americans who have had it with their nation coming up short.
“People in this country are smart,” he told listeners at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies’ 2015 conference in Nashville on Saturday.
“We’re tired of being the patsies for everyone,” Trump said.
“There is a big, big, growing-by-leaps-and-bounds silent majority out there. [The 2016 race] is going to be an election based on competence.”
Trump argued he is surging in national polls because he represents the Tea Party supporters ignored by Democrats and betrayed by Republicans.
“I love the Tea Party,” Trump said. “You people have not been treated fairly. These are people who work hard and love their country, and then get beat up by the media. It’s disgusting.”
“At least I have a microphone and can fight back,” the outspoken billionaire added.
Trump indicated he envisions a much wider base for his campaign than traditional Republican voters next election cycle.
“You don’t know how big you are,” he told listeners. “The Tea Party has tremendous power. It’s Democrats, it is evangelicals, it is everybody.”
The New York business mogul also vowed he would not succumb to the prestige and power of Washington’s political establishment if he wins in 2016.
“They go to Washington and they get weak,” Trump said of Democrats and Republicans alike. “They get there and they see these beautiful, vaulted ceilings and they say, ‘Honey, I’ve made it.’ That won’t happen to me, I promise.”
Trump also said he intends on saving taxpayer dollars by focusing his energy on the nation’s capital if elected next year.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Yes, I see your electoral map. That is proof that Trump can't win. He is from New York. Most the country will not vote for a New Yorker. Sorry, but a lot of people in the South, Midwest, and West will NEVER trust a New Yorker. One of the reasons Romney was such a mistake is because he was from Massachusetts. And Republican ones especially won't trust a New Yorker who was a Democrat a few years ago. This country hasn't elected a New Yorker as president since 1944, and it won't be anytime soon.
You claim only a liberal is electable. Well, we've tried that for 30 years. Can't we get a conservative once.
No, you’re winning because God wants you to win. Remember to give him the credit and read your Bible to see what it says and govern that way and you will be blessed.
Mr. Trump isn’t swayed by vaulted ceilings because he’s built or been in most then.
“honey we made it...” ..
.He already did and I think he is sincere in his desire to give back to his country. I think he is genuinely worried about the future of the U.S.
Your hatred for Trump is unnatural. You really should see someone about that.
No one dominates a thread like this unless they are seriously disturbed. I’ve seen this behavior before and all it does is irritate people and does nothing for your cause; whatever that may be.
Seriously dude. Get help. You have a problem.
You are so right.. You all are. We need a bull who isn’t afraid of the China shop... Which he probably understands better than most.
By the way, do you go one Obama or Michelle threads and say the same thing?
"I’d be all for Trump if I can get myself to believe he is electable. But given the nationally high percentage of those who will definitely not vote for him, I think we must follow the Buckley principle. We elect the most conservative and the one who could win. In my opinion that leaves out Trump. Of those still standing I would like Cruz to capture the nomination. Absolute No to Bush, Kasich, Graham"
~sigh~ In some ways Buckley is still killing us. No doubt this is the core of the myth pushed by Rush that we are a "Conservative" country. At the Presidential level it most certainly is not. People are not waiting around for the superhero anti-Liberal to appear so they can crawl over broken glass to cast their votes. Indeed we are, but the vast majority are not, and that number is only getting worse each and every day.
First of all, your point about electing the most conservative who can win appears rational and logical on the surface. But your application of it seems to stop at the first part, ignoring the bold part, and that is quite irrational and illogical. Furthermore, that first part, did NOT work even way back in Buckley's day. Consider the 1980 election ( which was -100 million in total population ago ).
In that year Reagan was an unabashed Conservative, Goldwater supporter, Buckley friend, ex-(D)emocrat and did not hide any of these facts. While it is true he got an electoral landslide, he just received 50.8% of the vote ( 49.2% voted AGAINST the Conservative ). The important thing to note is that four years later after massive attention to Jobs/Taxes/Military he received 58.8% of the vote. He did this by reaching in a taking tons of enemy votes, the so-called Reagan (D)emocrats and (I)ndependents, not by finding "Conservatives" who sat out the 1980 election. These people, like so many you are seeing today, are voting "pocketbook" issues, of which JOBS and TAXES are right at the top, equaled only by ILLEGAL ALIENS. It is pure populism. But even though populism has risky connotations, the current subject is pro-America populism and has a direct parallel to 1984.
Keep in mind that the 50.8% Reagan received in 1980 happened with the demographics far, far, FAR more favorable than today, and in an even worse economy. The myth is that it was "Conservatism" that won that battle, or any Presidential election. It is a dangerous myth ( for us ) to believe. It is perfectly true for all local and most State elections, but not the Presidential one which is big-Personality, big-Money, big-Party, and big-Media driven. Hence, the Buckley principle is only applicable if you recognize your target audience.
The demographics are so bad right now ( the enemy has 250+ electoral votes at the starting line ) that it already may be over. I've described this possible victory as threading a needle. See my post a few back with the electoral map. Purity testing the candidate for doctrinaire "Conservatism" is not going to gain electoral votes in those "purple" states we don't already have, and neither is GOPe establishmentarianism either ( demonstrably proved over and over including 2012 ). The needle is thread by somehow getting those (D)amn (D)ummycrats to vote for populist pocketbook issues that are pro-American rather than the usual selfish liberal platform. This so far, appears to be Trump's plan.
Someone has to say it, so I will ... this Presidential election is NOT about "Conservatism" ( or (R)epublicanism, or (D)emocratism ) it is about America, and nothing else. Period. Country before Party.
I would disagree that San Diego is "flyover country", but you're free to your opinion. As for your insistence that liberal Trump is not an ideologue, that is your opinion also. He certainly has along liberal past that proves otherwise.
Here in New York he is better characterized as agnostic. He is NOT of the two prevailing political machines. Cuomo and Koch were from the (D) machine, Rockefeller and Pataki from (R). He, like many of us who hate them both, are in turn hated by both. It's an example of that very old adage, 1/3 are (D)ummies, 1/3 are (R)ats, and 1/3 are small "i" independent. And this is because of the nature of those two political containers, their litmus tests, their track record, their failings.
You're apparently confusing party with ideology. It matters not if he is a democRAT, Republican or independent. He has a long liberal past that proves he is a liberal. Deny that all you want, but your denials can't change history.
Believe what you want, but Trump is not a member of either species. And I really do believe that this is his strength. It is a feature, and not a bug, particularly in this election.
The conservative positions Trump has espoused while on the campaign trail, while appealing to many, are antithetical to almost all he has stood for for decades. You may call that a strength, I call it flip-flopping. Mitt Romney was a flip-flopper, did you support him also?
I would definitely stay home should he win as I will never vote for a liberal.
"You claim only a liberal is electable. Well, we've tried that for 30 years. Can't we get a conservative once."
I never said only a liberal can get elected.
Jobs, Taxes, Military, Supreme Court ( mentions Alito ), Illegal Aliens. These are the big issues and those are the ones that Trump is riding. Those also happen to be the four corners of the Reagan administration in hindsight.
They will never vote for a "New Yorker"? They have voted for a New Yorker as you grudgingly noted, FDR in a similar economy. Not only that, they *have* recently voted for a Chicago Communist.
Here's the sad truth that you cannot wrap your brain around ... in the big election it is NOT solely or even partly about ideology since all possible ideological candidates have gotten elected in the recent past. However there is a bias in the major media against (R)epublicans and especially Conservatives. The most Conservative one up there is Cruz. what are his chances of flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan?
It is always about pocketbook issues. That is how you pull votes from the (D)ummycrat enemy ( if they are in fact your enemy ). Trump's plan looks like it is to get a few percent of each of the (D)ummycrat core constituencies. That is the only logical way to flip those States because every (D) crossover is the same thing as getting two (R) votes ( because they decrease by one, and we increase by one ).
So yes, I do believe with the wind at his back, a careful battle plan, a little luck, and help from God, he could thread the needle and flip Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Indiana, and make a decent run at Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Virgina. Especially if he goes straight into New York, California and Illinois and bleeds the enemy bankroll as they defend those major markets they they take for granted. He will need a 50 State strategy.
The problem that you and a few others will not accept is that pretty much all of our other candidates are not even in this game to begin with. They would have to do this exact same thing themselves. Now stop ducking and sketch out a scenario where one of the others can take on this challenge!
No, I am diametrically opposed to that. But it is true the Heritage Foundation or one them, came out with just such a proposal in the late 1990’s and the Republican Party really was not against it.
Maybe that explains why the leadership keeps dragging their feet about doing anything on Obamacare, they and Democrats eventually want a single-payor system regardless of what we the voters want.
"You're apparently confusing party with ideology. It matters not if he is a democRAT, Republican or independent. He has a long liberal past that proves he is a liberal. Deny that all you want, but your denials can't change history."
You know full well I wasn't talking about party labels. Trump is like many of us above NYC who are outcasts from both parties AND THEIR IDEOLOGIES ( liberalism or crony-capitalism ). At worst he was a switch-hitting opportunist which as I say is a good thing considering we are ruled by a uniparty. He knows how to deal with both ( and so do I because it *is* an occupational hazard of our political geography ).
You remind me in the same but opposite way of Zell Miller and Lanny Davis in 1992 insisting that Clinton's record proved he was a Conservative, or at least a blue-dog, so "don't try to change history". ( Zell Miller came to his senses later, while Lanny Davis just got dumber ).
All things are relative, I understand that, and he indeed might be painted as a liberal compared to you and me. But I must be way older than you because I heard the exact same things about Reagan ( who was also a liberal compared to me ) supporting the New Deal, being a union sympathizer, and signing the biggest Abortion bill to date.
But when the surgeon is about to cut out your brain tumor you don't purity test his ideology. If your house is burning down you might even accept help from passerby neighborhood gangbangers and drug addicts in the heat of the moment.
Maybe you can list off the things that a President Trump might do that will worry you? We know the limits of Presidential power and ability. So dispense with the ideological strawmen and cite the damage he would cause.
Meanwhile I will gladly accept this so-called "liberal"'s help at [1] creating Jobs and restarting the economy, [2] correcting trade imbalances and asserting USA interests abroad, [3] cutting or wholesale restructuring of taxes, [4] thwarting Illegal Aliens, [5] appointing four or five more Alitos ( to replace Ginsberg, Breyer, Scalia, Thomas, and hopefully Kennedy ), and [6] restoring the Military and kicking ISIS ass.
My dream / wish / whatever is well within reach and is actually possible ( well, as possible as it can be given the current demographics ), what have you got?
He is a liberal because he has a history that proves him to be just that.
I volunteered for Reagan's 1976 campaign when he lost to Ford. I worked his 1980 campaign also. There is little in the way of a valid comparison between the two men. Reagan, while still a democrat was conservative. Trump, while a Republican, is still a liberal and as such, cannot be trusted.
So ONE Heritage paper made some suggestion, and now we can say Republicans have supported single payer? That’s a ridiculous argument. In all the think tanks out there, I’m sure all kinds of crazy suggestions have been made, but that doesn’t make it logical to say, “The Republican Party believed... XYZ.” Can someone say the Republican Party “has supported the legalization of marijuana.” because one governor did. (Gary Johnson) Can you say, “the Republican Pary supported abolishing the death penalty,” because Governor Ryan put a moratorium on it?
You’ve become a bad joke.
But when the surgeon is about to cut out your brain tumor you don't purity test his ideology. If your house is burning down you might even accept help from passerby neighborhood gangbangers and drug addicts in the heat of the moment.
Maybe you can list off the things that a President Trump might do that will worry you? We know the limits of Presidential power and ability. So dispense with the ideological strawmen and cite the damage he would cause.
Meanwhile I will gladly accept this so-called "liberal"'s help at [1] creating Jobs and restarting the economy, [2] correcting trade imbalances and asserting USA interests abroad, [3] cutting or wholesale restructuring of taxes, [4] thwarting Illegal Aliens, [5] appointing four or five more Alitos ( to replace Ginsberg, Breyer, Scalia, Thomas, and hopefully Kennedy ), and [6] restoring the Military and kicking ISIS ass.
My dream / wish / whatever is well within reach and is actually possible ( well, as possible as it can be given the current demographics ), what have you got?
______________________________
Great post. Well said.
“I’m not convinced Trump can handle Washington in such a way as to accomplish what needs to be done...”
He can’t POSSIBLY do worse that the former 1-term Junior Senator from Illinois. If ALL Trump did in the Oval Office was spend 4 years shotgunning Obama’s “legacy” to confetti while Congress kept the country running with the regular appropriations and spending bills, THAT would be a Conservative win, in and of itself. Government non-expansion from the Congressional side — stasis, essentially; and meanwhile in Department after Agency after Bureau throughout Washington, the blazing political guns of the Trump Administration sweep the halls, and the political bodies pile higher; everyone adorned with a toe-tag bearing that same infamous “O” logo.
Trump’s campaign icon needs to be a “room broom.”
[No, don’t “Google it”; Google pretends not to know. Bing’s got it right, though. Or you can ask a soldier.]
Well... I spent almost 6 hours in a train station in Chicago a few days ago, every seat in the waiting areas had a monitor nearby playing CNN, and CNN spent most of their time (outside of commercials) attempting to attack Trump. Strangely, their schtick* sounded nothing like what you are saying the media is telling us...
*It sounded more to me like a poorly constructed attempt to sway moderate voters. For example, if CNN really wanted to assist Trump in wrecking the GOP, they’d have played the footage in which Trump eviscerated Jorge Ramos. In fact, in almost 6 hours, they never did. (If you think CNN would not throw a reporter to the wolves to further their long term goals, then you don’t know those people well enough!)
Of course, you and I may differ: In the last year I’ve “come around” to the argument that the GOPe needs to be destroyed. I say that as someone who’s been a conservative Republican (at least 95%) for over 40 years.
As for Trump, I have reservations, but instead of asking intelligent questions about his positions (which might actually get picked up and asked of Trump at his news conferences if they were posted half as often as you attack here) you just repeat ad nauseum your simplistic attacks. For those of us who must spend 99% of our time on work, family, etc., someone like you who obviously has time to spend formulating astute questions could provide a valuable service by doing so.
Example: “Mr. Trump, WHY do you think single payer health insurance would have worked well in the US 20 years ago, but not today? What specifically was different then vs. now?”
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.