Posted on 02/25/2016 3:57:09 PM PST by Jim W N
RE: You need to examine your life when winning an election is more important than supporting our troops.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~bigolfreeper/
Dumbass
I left one job where my boss wanted to to lie to my customers.
I packed up my stuff and left. I guess in your world, I should have just blindly went along with my boss.
Get real.
First timers at hiring... LOL
Cruz was reported to have opened up a law office, so he may have created a few jobs. Didn’t seem to stick with it long. It may have been years. I don’t know.
“He’s a crazy untested mainiac who will blow us all up” was a meme before “meme” was invented. The earliest case I know of was “I’ll lob one into the men’s room of the Kremlin” by Goldwater back when he was running against Johnson. There could be earlier, but that is the first one I personally remember. And I think it did make an impact. This was not helped by other stories like his designing fire ants print men’s boxers for hostile wives to buy, or sending rodents in cylinders through the tube sending system in his department store to various women. [I wonder if the tube system is still in use anywhere?] That went over like Romney carrying his pooch on top of the car.
I once worked for a smart (left brain), crazy (right brain) politician who was always sending insultingly sarcastic messages to other committee members suggesting they should deign to grace the meeting where a subject of interest to them might teach them something useful. Language like that. Then he would get a nasty reply, then I would have to take dictation, type and send back another replay, and maybe another round. After a while, he would dictate, I would go to the persons office, tell the secretary that a topic was on the calendar for the committee meeting if their boss was interested. A few days later my boss would ask if I had sent his message. I would say, “they know about the meeting,” and we would go on to other work. Saved many hours of stupid work.
I don’t like Rubio and I’ll have to know more about what you said, but really.
I think Trump is the worst candidate ever.
Cruz has been campaigning for a year. If his campaigning for a year in a high minded manner has not yielded success, another 120 minutes of high mindedness with exquisite manners will not yield victory, either.
Yes, because what America needs is a rich low-bred boor instead of a high-minded constitutionalist for president.
With regard to VP, I say (only because I am optimistic) don’t fret about it. Below is part of a post I put in a different thread:
I suspect Trump will be the first Presidential contender to actually fill the VP position as if it were another cabinet slot. I think he will seek a real working partnership with a politically savvy close to the chest trust worthy collaborator who can work the Congress critters into his camp like a sheep dog. Or, at least I can hope that’s what he would do. It would be a great sign of things to come. I hope he does not start out his dream team by picking a lousy useless VP. That will be his first chance to shine his star at the top of the hill, out of Hillary’s (or Bernie’s) reach. Just my thoughts on it fwiw.
I got feedback that GWB picked such a good executive as VP. But I am thinking beyond that and more specifically toward dealing with Congress, rather than foreign affairs. While I agree Cruz might fit that description, let’s not lose sight that there may be others who would fill that capacity even better. I am hopeful for a VP pick that would surprise and greatly excite the base (similar to how Sarah did), and devastate the Dems from gaining any momentum. I don’t have any specific someone in mind. I just hope Trump sees how vital it is to choose wisely. I suspect he does.
I learned since being a FredHead not to glob onto one candidate too much, lest disappointment becomes a constant part of my diet for some time. We’ve all had our share of disappointments in the past two decades or more. I could use a healthy dose of WIN! :)
May the Force be with us all.
Yes, but get rid of ObamaCare, and go back to what preceded it, and we still DON’T have a system where health insurance costs are driven down by nation-wide competition. When did we have “no lines”, to paraphrase Trump? Pre-1945, that’s when. [See: McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945)]
Where Trump wants to head is an entirely new place - it has never existed in the US in the realm of health insurance. (This is partially because “not having the the lines” is so old a policy, and partially because the present combination of circumstances (medical and economic environment) has very little in common with the pre-1945 landscape.
I would add that if one was not working for a generous employer immediately pre-ObamaCare, and not doing so well, income-wise, health insurance costs were already nearly impossible to afford. Medicaid was the only option. Plus, insurance costs were soaring. If that’s what ObamaCare opponents want to return to, within a few years the screams will be so bad that we’ll probably get single-payer, mandatory for everyone, right out the gate. (It’ll be as soon as the Dems get power, which will be quickly, in that event.) The period (10 years?) before ObamaCare is a horrible target.
What is needed is to add real competition into the equation, to hopefully get insurance costs vs. income back to, oh, say, what they were in the ‘80’s. How is this not new, when it’s not been tried in modern times?
BTW, in the 80’s I was sometimes barely making minimum wage, trying to get my business going / growing, and I still could afford health insurance. That, IMO, that is where Trump wants to head, with some form of Medicaid for the truly indigent. If you don’t consider that “new”, then fine, but it’s so old, it might as well be new. :-)
Now, all this leaves out the issues of rising health care costs themselves, a critical factor, but since nobody is addressing that, there’s nothing to compare between candidates. :-(
Selling insurance across state lines is hardly a Trump invention. It’s been the standard GOP policy and Romney’s policy for years. I think Cruz is for it as well.
Then you wouldn't have talked to Trump for most of his adult life. He supported amnesty and attached Bush for not. I noticed that Chris Christie who just endorsed Trump was the same as Trump. Suddenly embracing the anti-amnesty and I bet you believe him too.
As for Cruz. I will let Senator Sessions do the talking for me. He has a few things to say about people like you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umhneqW41Ig
Being GOP policy is just empty claims by the eGOP. If it was their policy then it was their obligation to stop Obamacare being as they are the leaders of the congress.
Weak scardy-cats, capitulating to the dems and Obama at every turn.
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.