Posted on 08/31/2015 12:43:37 AM PDT by Behind the Blue Wall
Why Trump?
1. Illegal immigration is the only issue; if it's not stopped soon, America will become like California -- a demographic one-party state.
2. Politics is about name-recognition and none of the other candidates besides Trump has the name recognition to challenge Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton.
Therefore, Trump is the only candidate with a chance to win who has promised to do the only thing that matters.
Is he ever going to make good on the promise of shocking information about Obama's BC?
What happened with that?
Yes, it's no different, really. Trump is promising hope and change of a different sort, and it's being bought hook, line, and sinker.
So what is the alternative?
You have just exposed your totally immature reasoning capability. Coulter was using a deliberately outrageous statement to draw attention to the fact she was extremely happy Trump had opened up the subject verboten to all in the political class, that of illegal “immigrants.” She succeeded. Yet there are those, like you, who would try to nail her to your overzealous cross of perfection for having dared to use such a “sensitive” example. GROW UP!
Immigration MUST be dealt with in order to secure our Sovereignty for future generations. How strange that I never hear you even vaguely mention the IMPORTANT things, only the nit picking slivers of useless misinterpretations that gall you.
Entropy, you never did answer my question about the lesbian-themed pics Melania Trump posed for.
You’re fine with a nude model for First Lady, but you didn’t tell me if you’re fine with implied lesbianism thrown into the mix.
Should I take your non-response as a response, then?
You don’t think there’s an alternative to Trump’s grand promises?
is your question relevant?
not really
straw grasping
Yes, but it was never funded. It was another Democrat promise that was just a lie in order to get what they wanted. They wouldn’t have gotten away with it if someone of Trump’s negotiating talent had been there.
I'm perplexed: In what way do you regard Donald Trump as a "liberal?"
Of course, I guess that would depend on which definition of "liberal" you ascribe to. And "liberal," as an English word, has undergone amazing transformations since its original coinage, (1) by John Locke, great British Empiricist philosopher, and Father of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the upshot of which was to compel the British Crown to recognize the "liberty interests" of the British common folk: Their natural, thus inalienable, right to life, liberty and property that any legitimate, just sovereign is REQUIRED to respect, and protect.
In short, John Locke's political philosophy was based on the individual person, as the natural bearer of inviolate rights by virtue of his human birth. The corollary is: No just political authority can transgress these natural rights of unique human persons.
But just as the word "marriage" has been totally redefined, its meaning actually inverted, in recent times, it seems the word "liberal" now means precisely what it didn't mean, in John Locke's time.
(2) By the time of LBJ's Great Society, such an understanding of "liberal" — referring to the key liberty interests of individual persons — had begun to mean something else entirely.
The modern understanding of the word "liberal" was transformed under LBJ (maybe even earlier, by FDR) to mean, not pertaining to the natural rights of individuals, but to the "natural rights" of different classes composing the whole society. Which are positively conceived as always in a kind of Darwinian competition with one another.
But at the end of the day, the goal of this definition of "liberal" is to make the "rich" pony up for the "poor," so to "equalize" social outcomes. All of this, I gather, in the spirit of Robin Hood....
[But as the late, great Maggie Thatcher (RIP) observed, the fundamental problem with socialism — which is what the definition of "liberalism" has been transformed into in recent times — is that, sooner or later, you're going to run out of rich people. And then — WHAT???]
Under LBJ, "Liberal" was redefined to mean citizen compassion for the plight of disadvantaged minorities. One is "liberal" if ones shows that "one cares" about these poor, abject people who cannot even stand up on their own two legs, let alone provide for their families. Government must step in, to address their needs.
The problem with that is the government, if it commits monies to such projects, is not spending its own money: It has no money of its own to spend. What it spends is a direct levy on taxpayer wallets. And my sense is a whole lot of my fellow Americans are utterly sick and tired, maybe even furious, about the ways the federal government is spending our money, mostly against our wishes and judgments.
Which brings us to category (3): What does Obama — and the next generation of American politicians he's trying to promote — think "liberal" means?
Certainly, it is not category (1). And category (2) is doubtful. Though it is fashionable in the MSM to regard Obama as a "liberal" in the sense of category (2).
Omigod, he's gone way past category (2). He finds it wanting, in need of "updating." Though sheltered by the word "liberal," he is engaged in a most illiberal enterprise: the destruction of the United States of America, the sheer betrayal of the American People.
In his view, a new world of "justice" cannot be established unless and until an anarchist operation has been successfully conducted and concluded, against all the forms and mores of the American "status quo." Then — and only then — can a new reality be established, a "reality" constructed in his own image, in his own interest and in the interest of the narrow class that supports him.
Polite company continues to label this abject radical a "liberal." Maybe a socialist. But under category (2), these two amount to the same thing.
So, dear Catherine of Aragon, where do you fit The Donald into these three categories of "liberal?" I'd say, (1), if any of them.
Beyond that, methinks he is one of the most "illiberal" persons I have encountered in recent times.
So, could that make him a conservative?
I would rather have Trump make reality only one of his promises, the wall maybe, then nothing from the RINOs except more BS and glad-handing.
You're putting your confidence in a lifelong liberal? Can you name another liberal that has your confidence?
I am strictly for hetero-sexual relationships. Homo-sexual gives me the creeps.
And no, I see nothing ugly about a beautiful person in nude. God made us beautiful so we would be attractive to opposite sex, which is the basis for procreation.
Like I said before, violence is one million times worse than nudity.
If Melania Trump posed for a picture before her marriage, I do not see how it makes Donald Trump a bad person. I do not condone adultery such as in the case of Bill Clinton. But posing nude is no problem for me. It does not harm anyone. Burt Reynolds posed nude for a magazine. That does not make him a bad person. Bill Clinton is the bad person for debauchery of a young intern in the White House.
Betty boop, you are much more thoughtful poster than those one liners from people suffering from DTS. They are not worth responding to.
So, knowing that the most important factor threatening our sovereignty and existence as a nation, including our culture,is the inundation of our country with illegals, and seeing no one else who is willing to build the wall to keep them out, you are unwilling to take the risk that Trump just might get it done. I believe that “the times make the men.” At least it seems to have in our nation’s history.
Washington chose a Quaker, a man of peace, to pull the remnants of the southern army together after the disastrous battle of Camden. The Congress didn’t want him but they had refused Washington’s choice once before which lead to the horrible disaster of Camden. This time they agreed, reluctantly. Green put Lee, the aristocrat, and Francis Marion the Frenchman together in a brilliant pairing, then he selected Daniel Morgan to play “catch me if you can” with Tarleton and subsequently Morgan brilliantly wiped out Tarleton’s forces at the battle of Cowpens. Cornwallis was finished without Tarleton. Yorktown was anticlimactic.
Washington’s genius at picking Greene, Greene’s genius at picking and pairing Lee, Marion, and Morgan in the proper place at the proper time gave the victory which lead to our independence. Some men have IT. Other men don’t. I believe Trump has the ability to pick the right people for the right job to break the stranglehold on this country. He certainly has the brains and gains much by a return to a market economy instead of the overregulated nightmare in which the government picks the winners and losers.
i’m willing to take that chance. I’ll be watching closely and may change my opinion depending on the developments over the next several months. But at the moment Trump is my choice and i have solid reasons for choosing him. At least for now!
Wrong. On page 271 of her latest book, Coulter said that abortion isn't important compared to immigration.
Betty....Trump has been a proponent for single-payer government funded healthcare which is a socialistic step to the left of Obamacare.... He’s also been a supporter of abortion, ....has advocated an assault weapons ban,.... and has even floated the idea of forcing the rich to forfeit 14% of their total wealth to reduce the federal debt.
His history is well worth be concerned about....He donated ‘heavily’ to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns, and to the Clinton Foundation. ...Not to mention that though he has stated he gave to all political parties a closer look tells us his financial support for Democrat House and Senate candidates has far eclipsed what he’s donated to GOP candidates......According to public campaign disclosures, 21 of Trump’s 30 political donations have gone to liberal Democrats and political action committees. Only seven went to Republicans
Trump’s been a liberal for the last 2 decades and a few months ago, he has an epiphany where he does a 180 degree turn overnight. I’m simply not convinced....
Oh, hell, no, a nude model who does lesbian shots as First Lady? Not relevant at all. /s
That’s telling it like it really is. Excellent!
We know only one thing, that Donald J. Trump is a lifelong liberal. Trust in him to build a wall all you'd like, I know better than to trust liberals.
Just out of curiosity, can you name another liberal you trust?
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.