Posted on 08/18/2015 7:42:50 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Admit it. Donald Trump is a volcano in a forest of Ronson lighters.
You’re not going to stop him. He may carry all 50 states.
The awareness of Trump’s invincibility is dawning slowly for several reasons. Nobody wants to be revealed as a fool if Trump flames out. Also, such a breathtaking prediction hates to be borne all alone. “Out on a limb” is a lonely place for a pundit to be. Then, too, a lot of heretofore wise observers are obeying the instinct to adopt a “business as usual” stance. We put subconscious pressure on ourselves so that yesterday’s “clown-by-consensus” isn’t too abruptly hailed as the winner this absurdly long before the first vote is cast. The dreamers in the GOP are still reassuring one another that Trump’s domination is a “summertime thing,” and that come fall the public anger will be gone and the people will ask themselves, “Is this the kind of person we want in the Oval Office?” Dream on, Dear Establishment. People are already asking that question, and the answer is not just “Yes”; it’s “Hell, Yes!”
Eight years ago Americans decided to take a chance on a “community organizer” without one single discernable accomplishment, not even authorship of his own book! (Thank you, Jack Cashill!) Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review – and never wrote a single editorial. And we elected and re-elected him.
And now we’re taking the measure of a billionaire 11 times over who’s boldly carved his signature in stone and steel and golf-course green around the world, written best-selling books and produced and starred in dazzlingly high-rated TV shows, and you’re trying to tell me this world-class accomplishmentarian is a summertime thing set to evaporate with the first fall chill? In a pig’s eye!
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“I think it’s important to just move forward as best we can, using the best choices available to us; and giving up resentment and revenge.”
Sorry, not following up on criminal activity simply encourages it to return. We are a nation of laws and we need to start applying those laws to everyone. If Hillary ends up doing stuff that got Petraeus locked up, she should go in as well. Ditto for any of her underlings and for Lois Lerner. These people all committed serious crimes, and must be punished. Punishment is part of The Future because it’s a deterrent.
Trump has several times said he wants Obotcare repealed.
On Trump threads it is required that you associate Ted Cruz with all positive statements and unlink Cruz if you are criticizing Trump.
Name one Republican that was elected last time that did not renounce Obamacare and they have produced not one thing to repeal or even slow down that travesty and you are worried what someone running will promise?
By the way, Cruz voted for the TPA before he was against it.
He worked and worked to convince senators to help it pass (to help his wife with Goldman Sachs and her Council on Foreign Relations report come true). Cruz got his wish.
And how do you think Barry felt? Barry was great and pre Rush.
Well, go for it, if that’s how you feel.
I’m just focused on ‘Morning in America’ again.
Too many of my brothers and sisters haven’t been able to get full time jobs or have lost their decent, affordable healthcare, over the past six-seven years. Too many don’t have true freedom of religion and speech. Too many have lost limbs in wars that were begun and not finished properly. Too many have been killed while just going about their daily business, by criminally-minded aliens who were allowed to walk blithely over a very poorly-protected border.
I’m not interested in ‘punishing’, I’m interested in starting over, and fixing things.
If you are interested in ‘punishing’ people, you can’t do it anyway, until you have power. And you won’t have power in the first place, by dwelling on the negative stuff.
Look at what’s happening in the news: we have an unlikely advancing-in-polls character in Trump who, when speaking of his own endeavors is ALWAYS upbeat: everything he says about his business and his performance is positive: “Fantastic! Wonderful!”
And we have the sourpuss microbe Mrs. Clinton, who is imploding.
Let your worries go, and concentrate on enthusiastically getting yourself a new government; then, go from there, if you still want to ‘punish’!
(I’d personally rather to see them live out their days in quiet, boring luxury - absolutely powerless.)
-JT
"There are a lot more billionaires with a lot more billions than Trump. Such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg. Arguing that Trump would be a good president because he’s a private sector success and a billionaire is dead wrong. If true, then those three should be better presidents since they’re worth even more. However, their ethical values and their policy positions are what matters. Billionaire liberals don’t help us at all.So if you’re going to tell me Trump would be a good president, you better be talking about the actual policies he’s going to put in place, not his net worth."
Sort of the Glenn Beck argument and it was perfectly rational, perhaps 20 years ago. He is harping about résumé checklist items but neglecting to consider that his assumption may be wrong, the assumption that such a résumé will generate votes. There is no evidence, despite what Rush believes, that at the Presidential granularity the electorate is or ever was Conservative. That is likely true and critically important at the Congressional, State and local level, but not in the quadrennial popularity contest. In short, Glenn and many others are way off on the basics of the election. But what about Reagan, Glenn Beck will say, he was Conservative? Hang on a sec ...
First of all though, the notion that it is about how many billions he has that would be incorrect for everyone that I have heard. The money *is* a huge asset in that it removes him completely from the category of "beholden" that everyone else is. This is a unique thing ( provided he does not pull a Romney and accept public financing ) and unless I'm mistaken it has not been done before. Only FDR comes to mind as having been rich enough to be immune to being "beholden", and could pay out of his pocket but I believe the laws were far different at the time.
And you are absolutely right that those others you named are stinking filthy rich, but their limited intellect ( yes I do mean Gates too ), and their complete and utter lack of patriotism and indifference to the Constitution immediately rules them out as any sort of possibility to me and I expect many others. Those bazillionaires are not USA citizens in the hearts, not even close, they are citizens of the world first, and foremost. They just chose to call the USA home in order to benefit from that fact financially and for personal security.
That *is* the difference with Trump. Sure he is a hard-ass, ego, alpha-male, showman, these are all true. But he is our hard-ass. He loves his country as much or even more than all the others running. But his real selling point is the exact same one that Reagan had - honesty and sincerity. He has gone out of his way to not be coached and phony. What you see is what you get. This carries a metric ton of weight. When you know what you are gonna get you are usually gonna choose that selection over the mystery choice. I've said it before, the same perfect storm gathered in 1972 and 1984, McGovern and then Mondale. The people chose the known quantity over the threatening mystery radical. This is where Barry Farber is coming from I think.
Contrary to what our party purifers are spouting, Reagan did not win because he was Conservative. He beat Jimmy Carter with just 50.8% of the vote ( a lot of states of course ). His message was promise of Jobs/Economy and Strength/Defense. Both directly addressed the two most pressing issues of the time, the crippled Carter economy and massive inflation and unemployment, and the failing military most recently with the Iran hostages. These are the two issues Trump is wisely coalescing around, and the parallel is strong with the Obama economy and ISIS abroad. Social issues completely took a back seat, they were really tucked away in the trunk, just as they mostly are today with Trump. This seems to bug the "Conservative" peanut gallery like Glenn and others, but where the heck were they to not understand this?
The main unknown, assuming Trump got the nomination, is the opponent. Put someone equivalent to McGovern or Mondale in there and it could be a landslide. Clinton or Sanders would be pretty radical and I suspect relatively easy to beat. Going against the grain I think that Gore, Biden, O'Malley would be harder depending on any scandals that might pop up. It also depends on the demographics which we just don't have firm numbers on. It may be physically impossible to get the (R) across the finish line because the (D) walks in with 250 electoral votes. That is, against a typical (R). Against Trump, all bets are off.
If this is our last relatively fair election ( another amnesty will finish us ) then we might as well make it a spectacular fight. And this one is sure shaping up to be spectacular.
I was an early Trump supporter, but I tend to agree.
Anytime I see a cult of personality, I recoil.
It's one thing the extol the merits of his position on issues.
It's another when folks like Trump BECAUSE he is Trump.
"I did not realize Barry Farber was still around."
He's getting up there. We had him in NYC in the early 1960's and beyond. He is literally *the* pioneer for talk radio and no doubt a big influence on Rush. He was a forerunner to the late, great Bob Grant too.
I mean the guy speaks dozens of languages, has a vast knowledge with total recall and is a wordsmith beyond peer. Pretty much H. L. Mencken without the atheist snark and far more prodigious doing three or four hour shows.
An absolute American treasure. Mark Steyn is the only one I ever hear that approaches his class and intellect.
Cruz would be great as Senate Majority Leader
He has stated that Obamacare is ruining small business of which he declares personal knowledge. not sure how he says he will end it. i expect he might come out with a policy on healthcare just a feeling.
But if is WAY too early to even predict he'll win the nomination, let alone the election.
That is incorrect. Trump has said he’d replace it with a free market solution that involves allowing people to buy plans across state lines. He’s used the example of when his company goes to buy plans and there are hardly any choices, because there’s hardly any competition within each state.
Still, the majority of his assets involve real estate, so and as president he can’t be blinded to impacts on the real estate market.
This is a case, as used to be quite common on state and municipal levels, where you’re counting on the rich guy to do what’s right, because he’s already got plenty of money and therefore not going to be corrupted. The correct assumption traditionally was that the poor guy in office was more easily bought. (Hello, Bill Clinton.)
I greatly admire Cruz as well. In some ways, that’s why I don’t want to see him put through the shredding that being President would be for him.
I think Trump has a far bigger club to bludgeon his enemies with than Cruz does. There will be many, many of those, for either one of them, and they will have blood in their eyes and their whatevers.
I understand there is no way around it.
He cannot direct his own money in any way.
Orly?
I wonder when they passed that PC bullshit?
None of those have expressed a desire to run for President.
Arguing that Trump would be a good president because he’s a private sector success and a billionaire is dead wrong.
How about arguing that Trump is a master negotiator and persuader? Would that be dead wrong? Wouldn't such skills serve a President well?
So if you’re going to tell me Trump would be a good president, you better be talking about the actual policies he’s going to put in place, not his net worth.
Ok, so have you read Donald Trump's immigration proposal?
If not, then you should. It's bold, detailed, coherent, and feasible, and puts the American worker first.
I'd love to get your opinion on it.
And I'm sure there will be more policies put forth by Donald Trump.
As for Trump's net worth, it, too is a net positive. Why? One significance of Trump's wealth is that he won't be beholden to any wealthy donors, and thus he will not be subject to their questionable influence.
How's that for starters?
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.