Indeed!
It's weird here now.
Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.
Posted on 01/14/2016 7:57:06 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Mark Levin has been trying to stay out of the conflict between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. He says he likes both men and has both on his show. But as Trump has escalated his birther attacks on Cruz, Levin has spent hours of airtime defending Cruz against these arguments...while studiously not mentioning who is making these arguments.
Well, it looks as though Levin has finally had enough, because ConservativeReview.com, of which he is editor in chief, has published a piece (that Levin has tweeted a link to) that exposes Donald Trump's political inconsistencies, point by point.
Entitled Trump's Questionable Political History, the article talks about how Trump met with illegal alien activists in 2013 and said he was "convinced" to support amnesty. The article also quotes Trump saying he wanted to "expedite" the return of illegal aliens into the country and notes a quote that Trump simply had no opinion either way on the "Gang of 8" amnesty bill that Marco Rubio is being so criticized for.
The article also cites how on September 8 of last year, Trump was for bringing in Syrian refugees, but he changed his mind on the 9th.
Here's what author Daniel Horowitz also wrote:
Conservatives need to know if Donald Trump is really the man who will put Americans first and demolish the "dummies" in Washington or if his lack of a coherent philosophy will lead him to reflexively parrot the very politically correct talking points he so vehemently assails and yet has so often adopted. Is Trump who we think he is on immigration or is he pragmatically trying to tap into a frustration to win the primary with a plan to revert to his original talking points
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Sweet you. I know it all seems very ugly and it is and I think it’s stupid because we have two great candidates IMHO and I will be very happy with either TRUMP or CRUZ or both on the same ticket.
Destruction Derby doesn’t play well with me AT ALL.
Hold on: Natural Born is the topic right now in the debate.
BRB
You miss the salient point that the defining verbiage exists in BOTH editions:
“are those born IN the country of PARENTS who are CITIZENS.”
“Additionally, Vattel did not purport to explain the meaning of the term in the context of British law or the common understanding in the British American colonies or newly formed United States. It is, at best, highly speculative to assert that the Framers looked to Vattel for the definition of “natural born Citizen.”
That opinion is disingenuous on its face!
The relevant sentence - “are those born IN the country of PARENTS who are CITIZENS.” - is self defining!
It’s not masculine to love? Or to love a dog?
That’s not my definition of masculinity.
onyx, I totally recognize this site and I think it was worse in the 2012 primary.
I was so vilified here because I liked Rick Perry that I took to my bed for months. I even moved to Hawaii but it’s still in the great USA.
I’m sure it will settle down and, in the meantime, it’s kinda fun if you don’t take it too seriously.
And I WAS right about Rick Perry...he would have been better than Romney. He might have won. But has anyone apologized?
Oh, heck no.
That is not what I stated in context! I do believe I qualified the remark - that of the OTT affection, that almost if not in actuality, holds the value of animal pets above the vale of human beings ... Such hyper-emotion and displacement of reality is not masculine, but more in line with feminine traits. And, as I also stated, childish. It is not a mature view of reality.
Indeed!
It's weird here now.
Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.
>>The worship of Trump on this site is a little scary.
It’s a lot like the worship of Sarah Palin in the last election. But the HUGE difference is that Trump is actually RUNNING for president. Palin just played coy while the people who worship her destroyed EVERY other Republican so she would join the race and accept her coronation as Queen of the Conservatives.
Trump is running. We support him as anyone supports their candidate. It isn’t worship. He isn’t our diety (as another poster suggested). But we do strongly believe in his message.
>>I mean that’s kinda sweet but we’re supposed to be grownups here and realists.
Grownups and realists support the candidate that has the message they like. You Cruz guys have painted a Reagan face on a guy who lacks the charisma of Reagan, but you think that he is the Second Coming of Ronnie. He isn’t. He can’t be. He won’t be. He entered the race and failed to create a central message that we believe he can deliver on. That isn’t our fault.
Instead of turning him into a Reagan bobblehead, why don’t you guys contact his people and demand that he step his game up instead of demanding that we switch candidates to avoid being called names on FR? That’s what grownups and realists do.
Trump is the only candidate with the guts and wherewithal to take a hardline stand on border security, the cheap jabor lobby, illegal immigration and our asinine trade policies that sell us out. The other candidates are mostly dependent on donors and PC police.
The donor class promotes crony capitalism not the free market. We once had a nation that made stuff, was self sufficient and employed Americans.
The face of America is changing along with the politics of dependence and political correctness. The power in America has unfortunately been taken from industrialists and handed over to a Wall St boondoggle that produces deals for an inside club, not capital for production. Trump has never been a financier.
***To: demshateGod; Jim Robinson
OK, genius - Jim Robinson supports Mr. Trump & Senator Cruz ... Is he a liberal too? You people are really going over the edge with your foolishness***
It’s so off-putting to see people tag Jim in a post he isn’t originally involved in. It reeks of “sucking up” and being a “tattletail.” Be a man/woman and stand on your on two feet.
I shall phone Ted today and ask him to .. what was your suggestion? Amp his game up? I know he’ll be glad of the advice.
You seem a little sensitive. I don’t think it’s wrong for you to support Trump enthusiastically.
I do think there is something of a cult forming and that is neither healthy nor attractive.
I agree 100% with what you say.
Levin is a kook. He is finished.
“I do pray it wakes...
I pray the people on this very board wake up and see the liberal charlatan they are supporting in wretched candidate like Donald J. Trump.”
You got that right!
Kush
Levin is a kook. He is finished.
...says nobody.
Kush
I call them Clintonites in Trump drag.
We should start a list of all of the conservative warriors who have been excommunicated from the conservative movement and branded as "RINOs" by the Trumpettes for the sin of opposing Trump or not endorsing him. Just off the top of my head, I have:
Cruz
Carson
Scalia
Rush
Levin
Trey Gowdy
Jeff Sessions
James Dobson
Steve King
Phil Robertson
Bob Vander Plaats
( ~sigh~ did Rip Van Winkle just wake up and notice what seems to be news? ) Each and every one of those you list, and many MANY more, are routinely "excommunicated" for a variety of reasons long before Trump ever came along. You are choosing to focus on Trump alone for your own personal reasons, and are employing a variation of appeal to authority to rationalize your current viewpoint. It is dishonest to make them all Saints who are being excoriated by "Trumpettes".
On the other hand, Trump supporters are clearly demonstrating to you something you are choosing to ignore - recognition of current events, even new found realization and epiphany that candidates for the Office of President have different logical requirements than the Supreme Court or the House or Governor.
This latter thing is key. Especially now that no President, even Madison or Jefferson could save America by getting elected to that office. It looks like modern Americans believe the President to be a kind of quasi Supreme Court justice. That is just so wrong.
I think what the insurrection is saying is that they do not want Scalia or Thomas, Madison or Jefferson as President. They want a bulldozer with a flamethrower mounted on top to level the place to the ground. On the other hand, when we get to the Supreme Court, the discussion will change accordingly.
I would ask our friends using a Conservative litmus checklist for President if they believe Clarence Thomas could save America were he elected to that office?
And this doesn't even address the 800 pound gorilla in the room - can a evangelical Constitutionalist, even without NBC issues, get past the current electorate? I pushed hard for Alan Keyes who surpasses Cruz and even Reagan on both God, and the Constitution. But I was naive then to believe any of the dozen swing states ( the ones we do not already have ) would elect him over a (D)ummy. And the electorate is worse now than in 2000, and gets worse each and every day.
I believe that people are realizing that they do not want to fall on that sword again and hand yet another 4 to 6 Supreme Court selections to the enemy. America CANNOT survive that. That's a throw of the dice, you really feel like gambling on that bet? So like Bush43, they are making what looks like a reasonable judgment that they have a guy who can get past the electorate, however with the added benefit that he will fight this time around, defend not only himself, and America, and get those absolutely critical 4 to 6 Justices into place ( maybe the first one can be Cruz ).
Though Trump's not my first choice, he would get my vote if he wins the nomination.
I agree with Cruz, everyone on the debate stage would be a far superior leader than Hillary and God forbid Bernie Sanders!
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.