Trump: Actually, I May Break My Pledge Not To Go Third Party

Townhall.com ^ | November 23, 2015 | Guy Benson

[Kaslin]

Hey, remember this?

The Pledge #MakeAmericaGreatAgain pic.twitter.com/5OVWdxgLn9 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2015

After routinely flirting with a third-party run, Donald Trump signed an unambiguously-worded pledge in early September, vowing ;forego a third-party presidential bid if he fails to secure the Republican presidential nomination. Having committed his word,Trump averred that he had "no intention" of reconsidering the promise: "I see no circumstances under which I would tear up that pledge," he said, calling the pledge "total." Now he's mad about some opponents and outside groups announcing plans to attack him, so the thin-skinned and erratic Republican frontrunner is once again changing his tune. Surprise:

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump would not rule out making a run for president as an independent despite signing a pledge over the summer saying he would support the eventual GOP nominee instead of running a third-party bid. "I'm going to have to see what happens. I will see what happens. I have to be treated fairly," Trump said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" when asked about a new guerrilla effort by operatives within the Republican Party to derail Trump's candidacy.

But not to worry, conservatives. He'll be totally reliable on all the issues on which he's completely reversed himself in order to pander to you -- from tax increases, to abortion, to gun control, to government-run healthcare (which he still praises), to immigration rhetoric and policy, etc. His longstanding alignment with the Democratic Party and financial support for Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid shouldn't concern you either. Nor should his ongoing left-wing talking points on "fairness," the Koch brothers, "blame Bush," and expanding the federal bureaucracy. And neither should his abysmally low (34/61) favorability rating among the general electorate, much worse than even his dear friend and benefactor Hillary's terrible numbers. He'll never abandon you in pursuit of his own self-serving interests, or for attention. Incidentally, Trump was given yet another opportunity on Sunday to clear up the "media smear" regarding his allegedly nonexistent support for a national registry of Muslims -- including citizens. He took another pass, declining to answer the question asked of him, keeping things nice and hazy:

Here's the full Trump quote, which seems to be about Syrian refugees, not Muslim citizens. pic.twitter.com/jtnE3Xkk5L Jimmy (@JimmyPrinceton) November 22, 2015

This is more evidence supporting my suspicion that he's deliberately obfuscating. His supporters who insist this is a made-up media hit job can point to his responses focusing on refugees, while other supporters who like the idea of this unconstitutional scheme won't find a denial in there. And then there's this:

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump is doubling down on comments that thousands of people in parts of New Jersey with large Arab populations cheered on 9/11. Trump said at a rally on Saturday in Birmingham, Ala. that he watched as the World Trade Center "came tumbling down." "And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down," he added. "Thousands of people were cheering." ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump on Sunday if he misspoke, noting that "police say that didn't happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time." "It did happen. I saw it, " Trump said. "It was on television. I saw it ... George, it did happen," Trump persisted.

He did not see it, and it was not on television. In fairness to Trump, I distinctly remember hearing rumors about crowds of Muslims in parts of New Jersey openly celebrating on 9/11, but no credible corroborating evidence ever emerged, and local police have strongly refuted the claim. He may have been thinking of this footage showing Palestinians dancing in the streets of Gaza. Conflation is often how false memories form. What's inexcusable, but not surprising, is Trump's reckless, fact-free double-down. But cults of personality will justify and excuse virtually anything. Which helps explain why this vile man still has an approval rating in the low 40's:

Obama: GOP doing the terrorists' work for them; WATCH: https://t.co/bgQyLsQJ2p pic.twitter.com/mMSezkW2UF The Hill (@thehill) November 22, 2015

[laplata]

“You joined the red herring of Trump splitting the vote as Perot did in 92. You’re not bullshitting anyone”.

This is what I said:

“Perot got Clinton elected. “Read my lips” didn’t have that much influence”.

Now you tell me how what I said has anything to do with Trump or even implies anything about Trump. You’re mixed up.

Apology accepted.

[JoSixChip]

Perot got Clinton elected. "Read my lips" didn't have that much influence.

BS! HWB was compassionate conservative, thousand points of light disaster and in no way had the leadership needed to continue Reagan's vision for America. That is why he lost.

[hinckley buzzard]

Perot cut a deal with Clinton to win the contract for Hillary Care before he even ran. The deal didn't pan out when Hillary Care crashed and burned, and Perot disappeared.

No sign of Trump making a similar deal.

[sparklite2]

Perot trumpeted his engineering skills the way
The Donald does his business skills. Remember,
Perot created Electronic Data Systems, which
he sold to GM, and was worth billions of dollars.

Perot glossed over the deeper analysis of America’s
problems at the time by saying things like, “We’ll
lift up the hood and poke around in there and see
what needs to be done.” Dana Carvey nailed Perot’s
idiosyncrasies on Saturday Night Live. Perot’s
main thing was fighting NAFTA, which was that
“giant sucking sound” down south.

Where Trump has charisma, Perot was just ... odd. But
he wasn’t that smarmy SOB Bush.

[laplata]

Votes to Perot got Clinton elected and that’s a fact.

[hoagy62]

Do you suppose if they really DO try to do him in (and, God forbid, succeed), that would finally be the “go code” for a mass rebellion?

[HarleyLady27]

IN my opinion, I think Trump should stay the course, and make the GOPe do whatever it needs to think they can do...

They didn’t make Trump and they can’t take Trump out, only Trump can take Trump out...(Rush Limbaugh)

So with that being said, let the rest of these candidates, governors, politicians and others make a fool of themselves and let the American People see that they are not on the side for a better America...make the GOPe and the rest go to 3rd party and support Trump on the Republican Ticket and take it all on a landslide election to the White House....

[jospehm20]

I agree. Blaming Perot for Bush being a dud is the GOP establishment line. Bush blew that election through his own actions.

[JoSixChip]

It looks to me like Perot split the vote after all.

No, bush split the vote because he did not stand for conservative values. He campaigned on the same uni party platform clinton did. Why vote for a panderer when you can have the real thing?

[Maine Mariner]

You maybe right on that one. I certainly hope so.
Regardless, the GOPe is going to be a rump party after 2016.
I also have not forgotten Mississippi.

[bray]

Did the GOP run ads against Perot during the primaries? Was Perot the front runner at any time during that election?

Pray America wakes

[JoSixChip]

I suspect Mister Trump is doing what he can to mess w GOP candidates, and then whine about "unfair treatment" and go third party, indy, in order to siphon votes away from the GOP nom and hand the election to his long-time pal, Hillary.

The term lily-livered comes to mind when I read your posts. If you want to change the status-quo you are going to have to man-up.

[Hostage]

You’re a bit dense aren’t you?

What’s this thread about?

It’s about Donald Trump possibly going 3rd party.

What are you carrying on about? About fricking Perot. Why would you be doing that? To imply Trump will lose like Perot. But your implication sucks because Perot and Trump are not comparable.

[kingu]

Nope, the Dems would win the election after each of the other two parties voting base is cut in half.

Yep, and it will be the last election conservatives have a chance of getting someone even slightly rational into the White House. The future down the road means Yeb's all the way.

Which is why we should tell the RNC to STOP attacking candidates and go after the Democrats. I think Trump would hold his pledge if it was fair... even if Yeb moved on.

[Hostage]

No one gives a flying f*ck about Perot. Perot is not relevant. He’s nowhere near as charismatic or as attractive as Donald Trump. Period; End of Story.

[Robert DeLong]

The site tells us who Guy Benson is, Townhall.com’s Political Editor.

[JoSixChip]

Fair enough, but if Perot had not run in 92, Clinton would not have won.

The bush's destroyed the conservative brand. The only reason w^3 was elected is because clintion was a scumbag. This country was designed to be run by citizen leaders, not politicians.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

I really think they are hellbent on getting Hillary into the White house at all costs, that’s how backstabbing the GOP has become now. They damn well know there is not a chance in hell Jeb or Rubio can beat Hillary, it’s all a set up. And if they can’t get Trump to drop out, they’re going to force him into a 3rd party run as a last resort to try to pull a Ross Perot which they believe will again get Hillary elected. But you know what? I think even if Trump goes 3rd party, he will STILL win. Just wait till he debates this effin bitch, he will flatten her and any other token RINO the GOP wants to prop up. People are sick to death of TREASON.

[Rembrandt]

I think this is merely the author trying to stir up some excrement because Trump is doing too good.

[DesertRhino]

“Votes to Perot got Clinton elected and that’s a fact.”

It’s also a fact that Bush didn’t have some kind of divine right to the vote of someone who is turned off by him.
No new taxes. And still other that things like condoms on the Christmas tree and other window dressing, Clinton was basically Bush. There were no huge policy differences. That’s why they are such close friends today.

They won’t get a vote by being the lesser of two evils anymore. It appears the GOP learned nothing from Perot and is acting exactly the same. They deserve a repeat if they manage to foist a Kasich or Bush or Rubio on us.