Trump has been on all sides of every issue.
But he is the one billionaire you can trust. He*s not like the others.
Donald Trump: The Least Charitable Billionaire In The World
He cares about the little guy. It*s not just about him.
Posted on 12/27/2015 2:27:54 AM PST by Helicondelta
Bozell states that Cruz is the one candidate who will return the United States to "her Constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian values," explaining:
On every issue of crucial importance to conservatives-defunding Planned Parenthood, ending the Obamacare nightmare, reducing the size of government, opposing amnesty-Cruz is not only with conservatives, he's led the fight for conservatives.
To be honest, if these were the only issues under discussion in this GOP presidential primary season I would hardly be able to make myself pay attention. It's not that they are unimportant issues. Personally, I support every one of them. But they are not existential issues.
...
As Trump makes clear, our country's representatives have no clue. Worse, they seem content to remain in ignorance no matter how many Americans die, no matter how far sharia spreads. Not Trump. When you think about it, his call for a Muslim immigration moratorium is really a no-brainer - but whose "politically correct" brain is capable even of thinking of it, let alone calling for it out loud? I regret to say that Sen. Cruz does not support Trump's moratorium, deferring instead to a rosier vision of Islam and immigration screening both in order, politely, to reject it.
That's too bad, but so it goes, further testament to the fearless, agenda-setting powers of Trump. It's really quite incredible: soon, maybe even before it's too late, GOP primary voters will have a clear choice on walls, borders, immigration, even Islamic immigration (and, I would hope, the related issue of Islamic law), all because Donald Trump plucked these crucial issues from the void where the politicians, including good conservatives, have been eager to leave them.
Go Trump!
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
This shows that Cruz is not serious. This is the one point that convinces me that Cruz wold be no better for the future of America than,say Rubio. He, or Rubio, would straighten out some of the finances of the country and make some short term fixes that would bring a semblance of prosperity for a few years but the slide into the ash heap of History would continue albeit with a short term perceived flattening of the curve. I think the combination with the best chance of turning the curve up is Trump/Cruz.
Oh, puh-leeze. I think not. Bit early for that sentiment.
I see Trump default on the loan, which we need to do. I don’t see Cruz doing this
I did not know that Cruz doesn't support the moratorium. He's leaving himself "wiggle room" on almost every issue.
Cruzers who probably have some comments for me. I stopped being a Cruzer, he's not even my #2 anymore. These little things have piled up. And one of those things is the verbal treatment I received from Cruzers since I started expressing doubts with the first TPA.
Good piece. And true. The time of waffling and mincing words is over.
“This shows that Cruz is not serious.”
Exactly. Cruz is open to “compromise”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCfo_aeAkhw
I agree. I have been watching a lot of DJT videos on you tube lately and have been making polite and logically unassailable arguments in his defense whenever a partisan lib hack tries to play the race card or the fascist card. I am trying to rally others.
Trump has been on all sides of every issue.
But he is the one billionaire you can trust. He*s not like the others.
Donald Trump: The Least Charitable Billionaire In The World
He cares about the little guy. It*s not just about him.
We are where we were when Hitler was sweeping Europe and Japan was sweeping the Pacific. Only this time our government is importing an enemy that will never absorb Western values the way the Germans and Japanese eventually did.
Grania, your post is well expressed and I agree.
I agree completely. I see no evidence that Cruz can attract anyone other than conservative Republicans. Trump shows that he can attract independents and traditional Democrats.
People can rally around anyone they want. We have a few good candidates. We also have one GREAT one. Things need to change and he is that.
Trump 2016.
We have to face reality in this country and put a moratorium on all immigration. That means no more Syrian refugees, no more Mexican and Central American illegals, and no more H-1B technical workers. We need to clean our house and any GOP politician who waffles on this should not get our vote.
Blasting through hard, dense layers of political correctness with plain talk that shocks, Trump has set in motion very rusty wheels of reality-based thinking, beginning a long-overdue honest-to-goodness public debate about the future of America --- or, better, whether there will be a future for America.
This article almost convinces me that Trump has more capability than any candidate to lead America in the correct direction.
I like Cruz. Been a fan of Cruz from the beginning in the Texas Primary run-off when Sarah P came out and endorsed him. He promised to be a representative for the people and to see that promise kept the majority of the time was such an abnormality, he was felt to be THE ONE for most of us Texans. Over time, he has stumbled and shown himself to be not the man we placed on a pedestal, but a man much different than a common politician in DC. This observation set him apart and above all the others. I’ve faith in Cruz that he would do the right thing, the difference being in what path he might take. The only item of discontent was the fact in voting for him would be against my belief in our Constitution. I don’t consider him to be a NBC. No matter how this may be spun...in my mind he is not NBC and should I vote for him out of necessity only would make my heart weep. Vote for him I would, but in so doing it would be a stab in my heart to feel this might be the only way to save the nation and country that is so loved. Brother Ted has his methods to get back on track. Trump has his methods - and the force to return on track as well. Would prefer the two run as a team on the same ticket -preferably outside of the pubbie party. Will gladly rally around Trump but do wish to see Brother Ted in the winners circle as well. He may not be seen thru these eyes as a NBC, but he is seen as an Important American who loves this country and Our Constitution.
PC kills and will be the death of us if we allow it to continue
He has gotten so good at his rallies. Sticks to many of his key issues mixing it up a little. His message is coming through.
"Rather than responding to Ronald Radosh's Frontpage review of American Betrayal, as a reasonable author might, Diana West has launched a series of personal attacks not only on Radosh but on the editors of Frontpage, calling us "hypocrites," "totalitarians," "ossified totalitarians," commissars" and liars ("If Frontpage Will Lie about This, What Won't They Lie About?") and claiming we "suppressed" -- also "purged" - a favorable review of her book because its opinions were "incorrect," clearly implying that they were politically incorrect. She also seems to have inspired a small army to conduct a war on her behalf in our pages, whose attacks use the same talking points and seek to defame and discredit us, representing us as renegades who have persecuted her because of her views. In other words, instead of answering the factual criticisms that Radosh has made of her book, she prefers to treat his review as part of a political conspiracy against her work by people who only pretend to have the views they do. Readers of American Betrayal will find this kind of paranoid fantasy all too familiar.
I am solely responsible for the decision to remove the positive review of her book that originally appeared on Frontpage on which she builds her anti-Frontpage case. Here is what happened. When the Frontpage review of American Betrayal appeared I received an email from Ron Radosh whom I have known for more than sixty years, and whose work as a historian is respected not only by me but by every conservative academic historian with whom I am familiar. Radosh is a pioneer in documenting the guilt of the Rosenbergs, in analyzing the Amerasia spy case, in dissecting the Communist infiltration of Hollywood, and in being one of a small group of conservative historians who have resisted the minimizing of the Communist threat by progressives and the whitewashing of traitors like Alger Hiss.
In his email, Radosh said that he was greatly disturbed by Frontpage's endorsement of West's book, and then explained:
It amounts to a Birch Society type conspiracy history theory of Communism and the Cold War, with half truths built to unwarranted conclusions, a failure to comprehend history in context, as well as great errors of fact that undermine her thesis.
For one thing Harry Hopkins was NOT Agent 19 [as West claims]. That was Larry Duggan. It makes a big difference.
"She misuses Klehr and Haynes throughout the book, and when they actually draw opposite conclusions than she does, based on evidence, she simply says they are wrong without bothering to prove her point. This is not a difference of opinion; it is a failure to use evidence correctly in order to spin her conspiracy theories...
This is as important an issue. Do we really want conservatives to rewrite history based on an ideological view, while ignoring context, evidence and reality? That is what she does" (emphasis added)
Once I saw that Radosh's concern was methodological - the dishonesty in West's use of conservative sources, her alleged abuse of evidence, and her construction of conspiracy theories not based on facts, I felt I had to examine the blanket endorsement our review had given her. When I spoke to the author of the review he readily conceded he was not familiar with the sources and could not properly assess such crucial matters as her claim that Soviet agents had gotten the United States to ship fissionable uranium to Stalin via Lend-Lease. Since West's book was getting enthusiastic responses from other conservatives and since the conservative movement had suffered from conspiracy-minded demagogues in the past, I regarded our publication of an uninformed review irresponsible and told Frontpage's editor Jamie Glazov to remove it. I also told him to communicate to Diana that while we were publishing a critical review we would give her as much space as she needed to defend her book.
Let me pause here to consider how she now presents herself as the persecuted victim of a Frontpage "suppression." What persecution and what suppression? We posted an irresponsible review that promoted her book. We intended to publish a second review that would draw more attention to her book. We were going to give her as much space as she needed to defend her book, which would mean even more attention for her book. What author would not be grateful for all this attention? As for "suppression," since the favorable review had already appeared and since no one can really erase something from the Internet, there was no suppression, merely the removal of our endorsement. Apparently, this was enough to set her on the warpath.
Instead of taking us up on our offer to open our pages to a controversy over her book, West launched a public attack on us calling us - for starters - hypocrites and totalitarians. At least she didn't call us Soviet agents.
My position on these matters should be perfectly clear. Some years ago I wrote a lengthy review of Ann Coulter's book Treason (in which, by the way, she trashed my friend Radosh). I adore Ann Coulter's writings on liberalism, and most of the sharp wit she displayed in Treason amused me to no end. But in the course of her book Ann went too far and drew a picture in which the demagogic Joe McCarthy became not just right in that the targets he went after were Communists, but also an American hero; anti-Communists like Harry Truman and JFK, on the other hand, were painted with the same broad brush as Communist fellow travelers like Henry Wallace and Soviet agents like Alger Hiss. I felt that Ann was hurting herself and the conservative cause through these errors in judgment. But I did not go to war with Ann or call her names, or demonize her the way Diana West has demonized Jamie and me. I still adored her courage in exposing progressive hypocrisies and facing down progressive bullies, and respected her as a conservative thinker, and always will. In my critical review of Treason, I praised Ann for the marks she hit and explained my differences with her over the marks I thought she didn't. It was the way I believed conservatives should conduct their differences.
My goal was the same in approaching the impending controversy over West's book. I wanted the intellectual issues to be the focus of the debate; I wanted a clarity to emerge about the roles the historical actors had played. Radosh's critique of American Betrayal sets a high standard in this regard. Neither West nor her supporters have begun to meet that standard or attempted to answer even one factual claim that Radosh has made about her book. I don't have a lot of hope that this will change because West has already shown herself to be a very angry, very self-centered and very reckless partisan, with a paranoid streak and a disposition to think in extreme terms that have only a tenuous and deceptive relation to the truth.' [end]
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.