Posted on 04/16/2011 8:57:04 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
Look how Chump operates. Caught red-handed now with his vicious attacks on George Bush, who most conservatives had issues with, he now says but for Bush there would have likely been no Obama. That may well be true. I have been a harsh critic of Bush's spending, including in my book. But Chump was calling Bush EVIL and demanded his IMPEACHMENT because of the Iraq war and in the middle of that war. He said Bush lied to get us into Iraq. His comments were vile and outrageous, not unlike the America-hating leftists who sought to undermine are armed forces there. Now he wants us to believe that his criticism of Bush was because Bush's poor record set the stage for Obama? Chump attacked Bush over Iraq because if you were a big-mouth, attention-seeking liberal, it was the thing to do. He had no altruistic or principled conservative motive for doing so at the time and expressed none.
As recently as last year, while conservatives and Tea Party activists were organizing and rallying against Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their radical agenda, Chump was helping to fund some our opponents. He contributed to left-wing, Tea Party-hating menaces like Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner, and Harry Reid. What about his contributions to Charlie Crist, while Crist was running against Marco Rubio? Did he donate to any of the Tea Party candidates? Did he contribute to the Tea Party movement in any way, with time or money, before today? Why not?
Chump also praised Nancy Pelosi. He thought she was great. I played the audio. I guess he was just mistaken, again. He supported universal health care, but not any more, of course. He supported abortion and gay marriage, but that was then, this is now. He supported John Kerry for president in 2004, but that's because Bush was so evil. He leaned on government officials to use eminent domain against a little old lady whose home happened to be in the way of a parking lot he wanted to build for one of his casinos in Atlantic City, but he has always been for private property rights.
So now Chump rails against China and demands Obama's birth certificate and we are supposed to swoon over the man. But when asked about the Ryan budget, he turns stupid again -- he says Ryan should not take the lead on this, we need a bipartisan consensus to move forward? And with whom do we build this bipartisan consensus? Reid? Obama? Is Chump really this dumb, or is he, once again, trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing?
Chump is a phony and dissembling. He called a hastily organized press event this morning because I, and others, are on to him.
TRENDING: Trump lashes out at George W. Bush and Obama
Today he is speaking at a local Tea Party rally. And why? Because now he wants our support, not because he supports us or our principles, or ever did. Chump is about Chump. And he thinks we're too stupid to notice. Are we?
Interesting.
So this tells us it’s time to forget the personalities and look again to the principles of our Constitution.
From there, determine which individual pundits and politicians are most devoted to these principles.
(Trump doesn’t score very well on this.)
Trump's support is mostly among the Tea Parties (he is speaking to the Palm Beach TP right this minute), he can't very well throw that support to Hillary, can he?
Would you vote for him or a theoretical republican?
But for these things:
1. Support of national health care.
2. Financial support of too many horrid libs, even in 2010, and that without supporting any conservatives or TEA party activities.
3. His statement on Rush that "reaching across the aisle can be a good thing".
4. His saying Nancy Pelosi was doing great things and she should have gone after Bush more.
5. Most of his political positions prior to this run have been to the left of the RINO's we all abhore.
For those things and more, the man should not be supported as the GOP nominee. He's big trouble.
He runs a Washington, D.C., consulting firm called Orion Strategies. Scheunemann and a partner have since 2003 been paid over $150,000 by one of Soros’ organizations for lobbying work, according to federal disclosure forms reviewed by Salon.
“Soro’s connections? Ever hear of Randy Scheunemann? He’s worked/working for Sarah Palin and he has some strong Soros ties. I’m guessing you’d be just as critical of her?”
My goodness, Soros has hands everywhere. I would hardly think this is “working in cohoots” with Soros. Peculiar? Yes.
Would you expect straightforward, honest talk from a professional salesman?
When in Trump’s career has he ever chosen to do what’s right, at the expense of his personal gain?
Why did he suddenly seem to change from liberal to conservative right when he decided to run for president?
I agree, he seems to have his hands everywhere.
Thanks for posting this information.
Question: how many Soros connections does Sarah Palin have?
Along those lines, what potential 2012 candidate doesn’t have any Soros connections, other than Sarah Palin?
Hmmmmm?
Say what?
You accuse Trump of being a salesman devoid of ideas and the twin sister of Marx and now you say we are debating morals.
I'm a wee bit confused?;-)
Maybe this is why Palin is such a target of the left, the rinos and the ruling class—she’s the only potential candidate with no ties to George Soros!
I’m saying the important ideas, the ideas you’re talking about, are ultimately morally grounded.
Er...okie dokie.
Meaning that George Soros would prefer any other candidate over Sarah Palin.
Mark Levin does have a FR account. Levin's FR handle is holdonnow.
Just ping him to your post 176. Don't know if he will respond, but he has stated earlier on Free Republic that he does read all his pings, though due to time constraints, he rarely responds.
You can rest assured that she won’t use that first hour to seal all of her records like someone else we know and intensely dislike.
If you take the position that there’s no such thing as right and wrong, then your argument works quite well.
If moral relativism is the best worldview, then Trump is a great guy!
You miscalculate. He doesn't need to throw Tea Party support to Hillary. Nor will he even attempt to do so.
If I read it right, Trump's job is two-fold:
1. Clear the Democrat field for Hillary. Which, if he mortally damages Obams, will have been accomplished -- without any onus extending to the Clintons.
2. Then, split the GOP vote, a la Ross Perot, by carrying a significant portion of the Tea Party into his Independent campaign.
We've been gulled once before by this strategy. Let's not let it happen again.
Have we ever heard Trump express an opinion on Sarah?
Having a moderate Republican survive the primaries and then change his mind about winning the campaign gave us Obama.
FUJM!
If moral relativism is the best worldview, then Trump is a great guy!
You get all that from "okie dokie"? Wow!
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.