Posted on 04/16/2016 6:24:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I was told yesterday that Trump is a liberal Democrat.
My reply:
Build the wall.
Enforce the law.
Deport them all.
End sanctuary cities.
End anchor babies.
Slap a moratorium on muslim immigration.
Cut the taxes.
Cut the spending.
Cut the regulations.
Cut the government.
Cut the debt.
Cut the EPA.
Repeal ObamaCare.
Get the feds out and allow health insurance to be sold over state lines.
Send education back to states.
Get a handle on trade.
Make trade deals in our own best interests.
Bring back capital.
Bring back manufacturing.
Bring back jobs.
Strengthen the economy.
Defend the second amendment.
Defend religious freedom.
Appoint constitutional conservative judges.
Rebuild our military.
Bomb the shit out of ISIS (and take their oil).
End political correctness.
Take the GOP head-on.
Take the media head-on.
Take the liberals head-on.
And win, baby, win.
All of the above on a shoestring budget compared to most of the 16 competitors he’s defeated (after they spent 100's of millions of donor bucks).
No PACs.
No big donors.
No party support.
What’s democrat about any of the above?
What’s not conservative?
What’s not to like?
And I’ll add a few more:
Redo the horrid Iran deal.
Take a serious look at NATO.
Require our allies to pay more for their defense.
Rebuild the Reagan Coalition and attract blue collar workers by making America first again on manufacturing, trade, secure borders, economy and jobs, jobs, jobs!
Make America Great Again!
Consider, please that statement in light of paying politicians... >ahem<, making contributions because that's the way business is done there, and the read this
There are a lot of successful people who are crooked as a snakes arse. Look at Soros, for one.
Look behind you on the list of oil producing states. We added 1 million BOPD of production. Things were a mite busy up this way, too.
Stalk much? I think that's the third or fourth crap crack you have thrown at lonestar67, and I'm not even halfway through this thread.
There is nothing conservative in harassing people.
Oh wait, Cruz wasn't in the senate yet!
Maybe you have a link to that record.
Sorry, chief, that's nothing new. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/3412394/posts
I see. Bribe the pols...
Must be those "New York Values" I keep hearing about.
I like 2ndDivisionVet... he is really helpful for keeping the eye on the ball. Will vote Trump if Cruz does not win, everyone is better than Criminal Clinton and Burning Bernie!
they put all of their faith in a faithless man. I see no reason to believe him, either. not a single thing he has done to date gives me any reason to trust or believe in him.
Ooops, I mean he will vote Trump.... I’m a TrumpGirl 100%
“Ronald Reagan’s whole platform is located in Trump’s.”
Except Trump’s platform is to the right of Ronald Reagans.
Pick your topic....
! ) immigration
2) international trade agreements
3) individual taxes
4) corporate taxes
5) Repatriation of over 2 TRILLION of corporate profits currently parked overseas.
That is right folks....to the RIGHT of Ronald Reagan.
He was an advisor to GW at that time and recommended Roberts!
Cruz, Justice Roberts Have History
by Aman Batheja July 9, 2012 5Comments
Within two hours of the U.S. Supreme Court releasing its opinion on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last month, former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz spoke out about the decision.
Cruz, a Republican competing against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in a July 31 primary runoff for an open U.S. Senate seat, called the decision “shameful” and described it as a “sad day for the court.” He accused the court’s justices of being motivated by politics rather than upholding the U.S. Constitution.
It was a harsh assessment considering that Chief Justice John Roberts, a man whom Cruz has described as a mentor and friend, played a pivotal role in the law being upheld.
Roberts has drawn scorn from conservatives for his decision to side with the court’s more liberal wing and uphold the controversial law’s individual mandate as a tax. Subsequent reports have suggested that Roberts may have been influenced by issues other than the constitutionality of the law in making his decision.
When asked last week about his thoughts on Roberts’ role in the decision, Cruz said, “It was heartbreaking and it was shocking.”
Both Cruz and Roberts clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist early in their careers, Roberts from 1980 to 1981, Cruz in the mid-1990s.
After Election Day in 2000, Cruz was a lawyer working on the legal battle over the Florida recount for the Bush/Cheney presidential campaign. Cruz told the Miami Herald that Roberts’ name was the first that came to mind when he was asked to help find lawyers to work on the litigation. Roberts reportedly helped with legal briefs and participated in a mock hearing to prepare Bush’s legal team.
“We needed the very best lawyers in the country, and I called John and asked him to help,” Cruz later wrote in the National Review. “Within hours, he was on a plane to Florida.”
When President George W. Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, Cruz was an outspoken advocate for his confirmation, calling him “brilliant” and a “lawyer’s lawyer.”
“As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him,” Cruz wrote. “He clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, worked in the Reagan White House, and served as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush’s Justice Department.
“But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’s approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2012/07/09/cruz-and-roberts-go-way-back/
That’s right, and no insult to Reagan implied.
Reagan is my favorite president.
Trump will also have to deal with a Cold War situation the way things are headed.
Well said!
Also factually sound, and I worked for Reagan.
“Reagan is my favorite president.”
Since Coolidge, and Reagan loved him : )
All of that rhetoric is skewing the direction it has since he started thinking about running for office.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not actually read my lengthy post. I provided a great deal of evidence with sources reaching back to the 1980s. You, on the other hand, provided tremendously less evidence and no sources for your claims.
Free Republic and several other sites online have shown me time and again that Cruz has a remarkable ability to attract the close-minded sorts that refuse to look at actual evidence in anything even vaguely resembling a neutral manner. Beyond the issues alone, I once had a Freeper misrepresent Trump's poll numbers, so I showed him the actual poll results and he still refused to accept them--that sort of obtuseness is mind-boggling.
Some Cruz supporters are so certain they are right, they only accept information that reinforces their preconceived notions and already rigid thinking. I see this attitude the most with the progressive left, but Cruz among the conservatives is right in their league. He and many of his followers overall seem quite intolerant of differing perspectives and appear to believe that they are the only arbiters of what is acceptable thought for conservatives.
Imagine, the guy has had over $2 billion in free advertising from the media. Let that sink in. $2 billion... And if you think that $2 billion+ will keep happening in the general, you’re fooling yourself. Couple his inability to organize a campaign combined with his ceiling of 35-40% of voter turnout (that means 60-65% DO NOT LIKE HIM) and you end up with a disaster in November.
By your "logic," over 70% of Republican voters "DO NOT LIKE" Cruz. And by the way, near continual attacks and misrepresentations from the press is not the same as free advertisements. You should realize that Cruz, in the unlikely event he becomes the nominee, will not receive the same soft-glove treatment he has up to this point from the press, which has almost entirely failed to vet him in their eagerness to do in Trump. That will change if Cruz is running against Hillary, and I've not seen any evidence that he will be able to withstand even a quarter of the frantic and never-ending attacks that Trump has.
Yet he is LOSING to Ted Cruz in election after election after election (up to 12 in a row now) even with the odds HEAVILY in his favor.
LOL. Next you'll be telling me how the moon landing was faked.
I am plenty aware of how the media will continue to treat Cruz. Cruz is attacked almost daily on the “conservative” FNC whom have proven themselves to be a Trump mouthpiece.
Trump’s $2 bil of free advertising has been attacks, but mostly favorable coverage, some is tantamount to hour long infomercials on a daily basis.
The difference between Cruz and Trump being disliked by 60% of the party is that one has off the charts unfavorables, the other does not. One attacks with personal jabs, the other does not. One is all over the map with their positions on abortion and countless other issues like healthcare, the other is not.
I love this, Jim!
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.