Posted on 05/26/2016 9:41:19 AM PDT by Abiotic
Under a President Donald Trump, the Republican Party would become a different one, a broad, populist coalition focused on workers who have gone too long without a raise and on social programs the party establishment has long seen as anathema to its long-term success.
“Love the question,” Trump said in response to a question from Bloomberg Businessweek's Joshua Green in a profile of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus published Thursday. The article bears the headline, "How to Get Trump Elected When He’s Wrecking Everything You Built."
“Five, 10 years from now — different party. You’re going to have a worker’s party," Trump said in the May 17 interview. "A party of people that haven’t had a real wage increase in 18 years, that are angry." Trump reiterated that cutting Social Security would be a "big mistake" for the GOP, remarking that "[c]utting it the wrong way is a big mistake, and even cutting it [at all]."
snip
Despite having issued numerous threats to the party about what he suggested would be a "steal" of his nomination, Trump praised the RNC chairman profusely. "I call Reince Mr. Switzerland,” Trump said. “He’s doing a great job as peacemaker.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
“Sanders would never run with Trump.”
I agree except that I do think his ego is such that there is a possibility he would.
Very small.
“The Workers Party” is indeed Marxist. It is equally true that a party which favors the workers would be the epitome of Conservatism.
Lol
The left changed the meaning of “worker” from someone that performs work to make a living to someone that is a socialist/communist.
I’m sure you know that.
When you allege “overt acts” you are charging a conspiracy. So we know there is as least one conspiracy count.
No way would Trump pick Sanders as a running mate. Biden would be more likely if you wanted to go that route. Can you imagine Obama’s head exploding if he was promptly shut out of all those relationships through Biden that he has taken for granted, immediately upon leaving office?! Probably never happen, but it’s fun to think about!
I don’t see how indictment or even conviction will stop Hillary.
But great point- I didn’t fully consider the galactic magnificence of a Sanders/Trump debate.
First- it would be BY FAR the most watched political event in the history of mankind. Second- both candidates would be shredding Hillary. Sanders has to bash Hillary. Trump doesn’t have to bash any Republicans. Brilliant.
Trump is coming up with some refreshing strategies.
Was my first thought. Maybe he should rephrase.
Not odd at all.
There's turmoil in the Rat Party and Trump is fanning the flames.
The longer it takes Hillary or anyone else to pull the party together, the better chance Trump has of winning.
Hillary is fighting a battle on two fronts and Trump is loving it.
Ryan wants to make SS even more progressive. If your pension and/or investment income is over a certain amount then you lose your SS. The “certain amount”, of course, would decline over time. It is just another way of further penalizing working and saving. I which Ryan would leave the Republican party. He is a false choice.
No, I hear you. I just have a visceral reaction to those two words juxtaposed - “workers” and “party”. Maybe it is an opportunity to take the meaning of those words back from the commies. Not sure it’ll work though.
White-collar criminals (the GOP-e) are not numerous enough to win elections. They are too much like the commies of the Democrat party, and the commie voters just vote for the real thing.
Apparently there is a majority of American voters who had no representation from either the commie Democrats or the commie GOP-e. These people are now voting for Trump.
When you allege “overt acts” you are charging a conspiracy. So we know there is as least one conspiracy count.
This post meant for Corsi (WND) article on Hillary crimes.
I agree with your comments.
What I mean is it would be odd if Trump helped Sanders actually get the nomination.
Trump will cream Clinton and get Sanders’ voters or supporters.
But Sanders would be a much more formidable opponent.
Problem with that is, what if Obama had in mind doing unto Hillary (for daring to oppose him) as he did unto Jesse Jackson, Jr. (for daring to oppose him). That bit of bad news she just got walloped with came from one of his appointees.
Trump should be careful to be nice to Sanders voters, but not Sanders himself.
He seems to be having fun with this, and that right there makes him a much more attractive candidate than, say, Romney.
lol, give it a rest, and come on board the Trump Train.
The alternative is Hillary who has promised to push amnesty in the first 100 days. Say goodbye to your country with Hillary.
IOUs silly.
but I hate the verbiage “worker’s party”
At first blush, sure. But the `rats have done so much violence to the language that—to use an example Orwell used, the word `fascist’—the word `racist’ has come to mean, “anything I find objectionable, or anyone who disagrees with me”.
The country has become polarized by the Great Society into at least two camps: those who work or worked all their lives, and then retired; and those who “retired” at about age 18.
Why not start calling it like it is? Some of us work, some do not. Recent example, hordes of 3rd worlders flocking to the land of milk and honey, yearning to live free.
If you object to the maxim, `From each according to his ability, to each according to their need’ then you probably also have a problem with Democrats arbitrarily deciding that someone else needs a larger piece of the pie that you worked hard to put in your pantry, more than you do. Most recent example, the `Affordable Care’ act.
There’s your commie party in practice: able-bodied young men treating child support, ADC, Section VIII, food stamps, and on-and-on, as `walking around money’.
And with all that free time on their hands making their real money in crime. Most recent example, St. Treyvon Martin.
There it is.
I don’t want 70 year old truck drivers. The fact is most manual labor jobs are not possible for a 65 year old and there are only so many foreman slots available. A higher retirement age sounds fine for a person behind a desk. As Trump says, we have to take care of our people.
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.