Posted on 01/14/2016 5:40:21 AM PST by reaganaut1
...
Mr. Trump has no desire to acquaint himself with most issues, let alone master them. He has admitted that he doesn't prepare for debates or study briefing books; he believes such things get in the way of a good performance. No major presidential candidate has ever been quite as disdainful of knowledge, as indifferent to facts, as untroubled by his benightedness.
It is little surprise, then, that many of Mr. Trump's most celebrated pronouncements and promises - to quickly and "humanely" expel 11 million illegal immigrants, to force Mexico to pay for the wall he will build on our southern border, to defeat the Islamic State "very quickly" while as a bonus taking its oil, to bar Muslims from immigrating to the United States - are nativistic pipe dreams and public relations stunts.
Even more disqualifying is Mr. Trump's temperament. He is erratic, inconsistent and unprincipled. He possesses a streak of crudity and cruelty that manifested itself in how he physically mocked a Times journalist with a disability, ridiculed Senator John McCain for being a P.O.W., made a reference to "blood" intended to degrade a female journalist and compared one of his opponents to a child molester.
Mr. Trump's legendary narcissism would be comical were it not dangerous in someone seeking the nation's highest office - as he demonstrated when he showered praise on the brutal, anti-American president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, responding to Mr. Putin’s expression of admiration for Mr. Trump.
...
Mr. Trump's virulent combination of ignorance, emotional instability, demagogy, solipsism and vindictiveness would do more than result in a failed presidency; it could very well lead to national catastrophe. The prospect of Donald Trump as commander in chief should send a chill down the spine of every American.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
All I know about his policies is he will bomb the $hit out of em and he is rich, very, very rich. Did you know he was rich? I did not know he was rich. /s
Trump reminds me of another great President and former Democrat, Ronald Reagan. Two great Americans who saw the light!
Clearly, somebody is “misunderestimating” The Donald.
Certainly, his stage manner, and his application to the subjects at hand, looks almost bombastic, and takes on the aura of a parody, but beneath it all, The Donald is always thinking, sending out his words like scouts kind of sizing up the positions of opponents, then either being pulled back if excessive resistance is obvious, or going back in and slipping within the defenses of the rival, and verbally blowing up the other person’s argument. It may not be college-level debate, but it certainly is a lot more entertaining, as part of the game is, after blowing up the other person’s argument, The Donald comes back in and damns them even further with faint praise that first looks like it is congratulatory, but still leaves the germ of an idea in the audience’s minds, that The Donald was right from the beginning. Subliminal, but it seems to be working. Else why would The Donald be playing before overflow crowds wherever he goes?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/22/peter-wehners-bush-machine-progressive-hitman/
Peter Wehner: The Bush Machine’s Progressive Hitman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EXCELLENT link maggief - thanks for that. The best take away for me:
“So it is in that mindset that Wehner has been operating at Commentary. He most definitely is a Bush alum, marinated in the philosophy of so-called, “compassionate conservatism,†which smears conservatism as mean, simply by the qualifier. Understand, he is not promoting conservatism at all when he operates under the notion that it is what it is not.
In order to promote his harmful view of conservatism, Wehner needs to show exhibits of who he believes are not proper examples, and, as he and Henry Olsen have published, how conservatives of today need to heed their view, the Bush view of Reagan, which is at odds with the reality of who Reagan was.”
I will vote 3rd party if the Republicans destroy the party by choosing trump as the nominee.
So you don't mind another Obama then, ignoring Separation of Powers, ignoring the Constitutional process, ruling with "a phone and a pen"... you just want it to be the kind of tyrant that YOU agree with to do it all. Not smart, and one of my biggest fears with Trump. The precedent, after 16 years of Obama and Trump, would be set in stone. The Constitution matters.
I know he’s fantastic and great. Does that count?
If Trump wins I might vote for him. That being said we are also considering writing in a candidate
I can do one better than that. If the e-Repubs choose someone who can't win (like Rubio) then I will strongly encourage Trump to run third party and do his best to destroy the Republican party. Leave nothing behind, destroy it all.
‘We are bankrupt and almost beyond repair.’
If Trump wins this, a few hours after he enters the White House people out on the street will hear a loud, incredulous rampage of words. Trump only has an inkling of how bad it is. He will be SHOCKED.
The next few weeks will result in massive change and panicked bureaucrats, especially in the State Department.
... BUT ...
If Cruz wins this? I have NO IDEA. He will probably throw up from the shock the same way MacArthur did after talking to FDR about military budgeting.
Cruz would wish he never had the job. It’s ugly as sin. Sick, depraved, and ...
Sure, Cruz might make things better, particularly with judicial nominees. But I know what it’s like to walk into a mess. Procedures and regulations will only confuse you. You need to take swift decisive action, trust your gut, expedite meetings and discussion time, and work your tail off.
I still regret voting for McCain, I should of wrote somebody in. Might do it this time just don’t know yet
5.56mm
Oh goody so you will guarantee four more years of commie rule.
What a freakin louse you are. Here is a chance to destroy the GOPe and all you want is Cruz(a rebel) and Rubio (Yebs water carrier)
Unbelievably naive
Mark Levins Thoughts on Peter Wehner: ‘Clueless’
By Michael Morris November 4, 2014
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/michael-morris/mark-levin-s-thoughts-peter-wehner-clueless
Nationally syndicated radio host, Mark Levin, called out Peter Wehner today on both Twitter and Facebook.
Peter Wehner, in his blog titled What Reagan Understood That Some Reaganites Do Not, defends James Bakers attack on Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel, while insisting that Reagan liked and trusted Mr. Baker, to the point that he made Mr. Baker his chief of staff in his first term and secretary of the Treasury in his second.
However, Mark Levin, having been a part of the Reagan administration, seems to think otherwise.
Here is what he had to say in a recent Facebook Note:
Jim Baker smears Netanyahu on Sunday and on Tuesday Pete Wehner uses the occasion to praise him, lecture Reaganites, and preach pragmatism. Clueless.
But just what did Peter Wehner include in his blog on The Wall Street Journal? Wehner referred to Levins tweet linking to an article in The Hill, wherein Levin wrote: I never liked James Baker, and neither did most of the original Reaganites.
Many on the right didnt like or trust Mr. Baker, who after all worked for his friend George H.W. Bush when Mr. Bush challenged Ronald Reagan in 1980, writes Wehner.
That apparently includes Levin, who said Baker is bad news, and he proved it on CNNs State of the Union over the weekend.
Baker went out of his way to trash Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel and pile on with Barack Obama and the rest of them, said Levin.
Wehner, later in his piece, called James Baker a hard-headed pragmatist suggesting that different people bring different strengths to different jobs, and people of different views and worlds can compliment each other in an administration. And Reagan knew that Bakers differences would bring his presidency great success.
Of course, Levin didnt let this praise for Baker go unanswered. Later in the day, Levin tweeted the following:
More on Pete Wehners ideal pragmatist James Baker, who once reportedly declared fxck the Jews.
Its too bad Wehner didnt include my other comments about Bakers contempt for Israel, joked Levin, but just in case you missed them, you can read and listen to them here:
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/michael-morris/levin-rips-james-baker-trashing-netanyahu-and-israel-0
Better than a squishy RINO who will let people in black robes continue to expand the Constitution to invent rights for anything and everything. Either way we end up at the same place, the end of America 1.0
Y’all can ‘muster the troops’ all day & half the night, but it’s not going to accomplish anything but to create ill will against Ted Cruz. Not that he needs any help with that- especially recently.
Cruz doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in the general election. Denial & delusion- mass adoration by his limited number of supporters, can’t change it.
It is your right & your duty to vote as your conscience dictates, so could you just do so without making such a display, maybe?
No, you will vote second party. The Republican Party, to more effectively worship Obama, have merged with the Democrat Party in spirit. This was evidenced in Mississippi when members of the Republican Party publically invited Democrats to vote for the Republicancrat.
Actually, trump is a dead end, so if trump is the nominee, our votes are already in a sense, invalidated. Some of us will go third party, others will vote for other offices, but leave the ballot for presidential electors blank, others will stay home.
We will not for trump.
It’s sad that the most likely candidates in both parties are, in fact, loathsome individuals. The only real positive I see in voting for Trump is its our chance to toss a cherry bomb into the punch bowl at the Uniparty celebration.
I don’t like trump. I don’t trust Trump and I don’t admire a “self-made millionaire” who started with nothing but his daddy’s 20 million dollars and then swindled his own brother out of his share. Clinton, Sanders and Trump are loathsome but if it comes down a choice between him and one of the other two, I will vote for him.
He may or may not be electable but you deciding that you won’t vote for him if he is the nominee is nuts. This is a chance to stuff the GOPe. If Cruz is not the candidate but Trump is why would you not want to slam the Mitchy boys?
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.