Posted on 07/24/2015 6:18:42 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Donald Trump, a 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said Friday he sometimes identifies more as a Democrat when pressed to explain previous statements that the economy generally does better under Democrats than Republicans.
"I identify with some things as a Democrat," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" when pressed about the comments from 2004, adding that "generally speaking" he was "never a Bush fan."
He is sending his kids to Wharton and they are learning that Republicans and Bush dumped the Economy?
You’re very quick to support 3td parties, even though they historically benefit the most liberal candidate.
And you are very quick to slam Ted Cruz for his “doozies”.
Are you sure you’re not some DU troll? Cause I have my doubts.
No insults from me. I started such a party, America’s Party, in 2008.
But as you say, most folks are still locked into the formerly grand old party by fear and arguments of perceived political expedience.
They were good for me too as were the 90s.
Which would solve what exactly? Some new party becomes the 2nd leg of our 2 party system and right of center voters gravitate to it in the same proportions they do the current Republican party. Your new party would still be dominated by more nominal conservatives than actual conservatives - along with anyone who simply liked Democrats less (which doesn't all mean they would even be conservative).
I mean, have you even thought this through? Are you going to try to apply a purity test to this new party?
I might make you feel good, but what would you have achieved. You'd still have all the same RINO's, they'd just be xINO's (the x being whatever the new party's name was). The center of gravity would still be the same. The Republicans lost in 92' to a spoiler 3rd party candidate and it didn't change anything in any positive way. What it did was to put Clinton in power which was particularly devastating because politically, conservatism was ascending in the 90's and with Clinton a Democrat President for 8 years he was able to stymie what could have been a far more conservative agenda. Thanks Perot voters for that!
Republican candidates that peak too soon do not fair well imo. Too much leftwing media scrutiny too early is hard to combat. I think Karl Rove/George Bush understood this.
Democrats had control of Congress but not control of DOJ and SEC. I think that was what Trump was expressing. Wish he would have mentioned the left had created the problem along with republicans and that Bush went along with it. It was republican Phil Gramm that pushed the repeal of Glass-Steagall and contributed to blowing up the safeguards to human greed in the securities and banking industry. And of course democrats do what they always do, they lie, cheat and steal to get the loot. The two parties have merged in that regard.
Does Trump think democrats would have dispatched the DOJ/SEC to prosecute all those criminal bankers if they had had the White House? I don’t think so.
We have to remember that there’s a Uniparty there inside the Beltway. An R label or a D label is meaningless when the goal is to loot and control the money.
Unfortunately Republicans who couldn’t work up enthusiasm for Romney gave us a second terms of The Dictator, and look where we are now. I hope they won’t make this mistake again. We will have to vote for someone who isn’t 100% on board with our conservative agenda. Every candidate is going to depart at some point. But we can’t have Hilary or Bernie.
Now, of course, the immediate precipitant of the 2008 crash was the trading by big banks in bundled mortgages, that should never have been even considered, much less financed. Granted further, that the many year push to have banks finance such mortgages, arose in vote buying programs, largely pushed by Democrats on the far Left.
That said, it is also clear that the Bush II Administration went along with proposals to allow the grossest over-leveraging of bank assets; that Hank Paulson was himself an advocate of that ridiculous over-leveraging of banks that we were later told were too big to be allowed to fail.
Trump's statement, here, is an obvious effort to play on his celebrity appeal to Democrats that are unhappy--many very unhappy with the efforts to force a bad tempered female on their Party. Trump is still an evolving act. I believe that his heart is in the right direction, and that he could prove a major asset to our cause. And the fact that he is smart enough to explore approaches to win over some unhappy Democrats, by not coming across as someone who thinks that the Republicans under George W. Bush could do no wrong, is encouraging.
Reagan won decisively because he knew how to appeal to lifelong Democrats. The Reagan Democrats more than replaced the Rockefeller Republicans who abandoned Reagan as they had abandoned Goldwater.
LOL
Morning, C.E. ... glad to see your common sense here!
If the other GOPee presidential nomination candidates were honest, they would admit the same thing. Except for a couple, there’s not a dimes worth of difference between a GOPee politician and a Rat.
At least Trump is honest enough to admit where he differs from straight Republican principles - if there are such things anymore.
Here's the thing. He's flipped 180 degrees on life, taxes and Obamacare in the last six years and belonged to five different parties since 2001. If he's honest, what are we really supposed to believe?
“...he is the ONLY Republican who so far can get away with telling the media and the Left off on any issue and not only getting away with it but prospering.
I keep saying, if he and I agree on 3/10 issues-—but the only three he focuses on are mine-—I could care less what he thinks about the other seven.”
There is no perfect candidate. I thank you for your post; it makes a lot of sense.
I'm with you on this. But Cruz, who is a much better conservative candidate, does the same thing. The cult of personality around Trump is just baffling to me, especially among people who rightly go ballistic when Obama's ego puffs up as it so often does.
I would argue that TED CRUZ has more charisma than Hillary or Sanders so its a moot point ...but a valid one.
I agree with you.
Let the hyperpartisans hyperventilate. It’s ok.
That math doesn't even work in dog years :)
“Okay. 3 out of 10? Damned low bar. And BTW, your purity comment is beneath contempt. 3/10 is not only impure, its PERVERTED and POISONED and POLLUTED.”
Aren’t you the guy that a few posts back was whining about those who speak against Trump are somehow castigated?
Hate to tell you, but your hyperpartisan attitude isn’t doing Cruz any favors.
Hank Paulson is a Democrat, meaning again...let me say this again....that Bush was repsonsible in that he empowered Democrats to make rules....thus Trumps notion that Democrats wouldn’t have let this happen is just as absurd as I said it was.
Think WHY...not just WHO.
You so so so so so so so so so so so so miss the point.......so miss the point. It’s really sad.
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.