[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: Trump: I'm not thinking third party -- for now
Source: Washington Examiner
URL Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t ... -party-for-now/article/2567803
Published: Jul 8, 2015
Author: Byron York
Post Date: 2015-07-08 09:52:00 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 597
Comments: 25

Donald Trump's 2016 presidential run seems custom-made for a third party. The billionaire developer has never held political office, never run as a Republican or Democrat. He doesn't need a party's money-raising apparatus. His anti-politician appeal — "Politicians are never going to bring us to the promised land" — cuts equally against Republicans and Democrats. And as far as Republicans are concerned, Trump appears to connect with GOP voters who are so disgusted with the party's current Washington leadership that they would be open to a third-party campaign.

But in an interview Tuesday, Trump said he has no interest in running as a third-party candidate, at least for the moment.

"I've had many, many people ask me about running as an independent," Trump told me in a telephone conversation. "My sole focus is to run as a Republican. I'm a conservative Republican."

"My sole focus is to run as a Republican," Trump repeated, "because of the fact that I believe that is the best way we can defeat the Democrats."

When I asked Trump to elaborate on why he would stay in the GOP, Trump cited his rising position in the polls, the big crowds he attracts, and his profile in the race. "We've hit a nerve," he said.

Still, Trump could hit a nerve as a self-funded independent. And as an independent, he would not be subject to the "three tickets out of Iowa"-style analysis that can put pressure on candidates who don't succeed early. So why tie himself to the GOP? "I believe I'm the only one who can beat Hillary Clinton," Trump explained. "Having a two-party race gives us a much better chance of beating Hillary and bringing our country back than having a third-party candidate."

At that point, I asked Trump about Ross Perot's third-party run in 1992, in which Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote. Did Trump believe Perot was a spoiler in that election?

"Totally," Trump said. "I think every single vote that went to Ross Perot came from [George H.W.] Bush...Virtually every one of his 19 percentage points came from the Republicans. If Ross Perot didn't run, you have never heard of Bill Clinton."

In the course of a brief talk, Trump made a strong case for staying in the Republican party. But he left the door ever so slightly cracked at the end, when I asked if he would definitively rule out a third-party run. "It's something I'm not thinking about right now," Trump said, "because I'm doing well within the Republican ranks, and that gives us the best chance of defeating Hillary Clinton."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: TooConservative (#0)

"At that point, I asked Trump about Ross Perot's third-party run in 1992 ..."

At that point, I asked Trump about Ross Perot's failed third-party run in 1992 ...

Fixed it. Had Perot won, the interviewer would have a point.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-08   10:47:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: TooConservative (#0)

" "I think every single vote that went to Ross Perot came from [George H.W.] Bush...Virtually every one of his 19 percentage points came from the Republicans. If Ross Perot didn't run, you have never heard of Bill Clinton."

I am not so sure I agree with the validity of that argument. I have heard it repeated a million times. Just repeating it does not make it true.

I knew a number of Republicans at the time that really disliked Poppy, and I personally knew a number of Democrats that told me they voted for Perot. Yeah, I know, they could have lied to me. But I doubt it.

To say that virtually every vote for Perot came from Republicans is a very tall statement, and is used to remove some of the tarnish on Poppy. Only God could prove it true, or false for that fact.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-07-08   11:10:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Stoner (#2)

"I think every single vote that went to Ross Perot came from [George H.W.] Bush...Virtually every one of his 19 percentage points came from the Republicans. If Ross Perot didn't run, you have never heard of Bill Clinton."

I am not so sure I agree with the validity of that argument. I have heard it repeated a million times. Just repeating it does not make it true.

Bush41 lost my vote long before Perot ever got it. Bush41 threw away my vote, Perot earned it. RINO's seem to think of votes as an entitlement program. A business model that takes for granted a certain percentage of market share, and then pisses all over that segment of the market is destined for failure. The RINO's really have turned the GOP into the stupid party, an evolutionary dead-end who's primary objective is to import democrat voters to appease the left wing globalist billionaires of the donor class.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-07-08   11:31:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Stoner (#2)

To say that virtually every vote for Perot came from Republicans is a very tall statement, and is used to remove some of the tarnish on Poppy.

Early on, the reporting on the We The People groups was that of longtime disaffected voters who decided to participate in a third party effort with Perot. In many ways, the Tea groups mirror the development of Perot's supporters in the We The People groups which became the Reform Party.

It's difficult to say that only people who were non-voters in recent elections were all that Perot ended up with in the '92 election. I think his support varied considerably but he drew from the GOP voters, a lesser number of Dems, and some people who had been non-voters in recent elections.

You'd really have to quantify how many of those voters came from the active GOP voter base, how many from the active Dem voter base, how many were voters that had gone inactive and distrusted the two major parties. And you'd have to do it state by state to see if the numbers of regular GOP voters drawn off to vote for Perot made the margin of victory and each state's electoral votes shift from Bush to Xlinton.

For all the times we've heard the Perot-cost-Poppy or Perot-was-a-Xlinton-plant arguments, I've never seen any comprehensive study that tried to determine the real impact Perot had in drawing away reliable GOP voters from GHWBush, studied state-by-state where GOP voters would likely have otherwise voted for Bush. For instance, in Utah, GHWBush came first, followed by Perot, then by Xlinton. So Perot's Utah voters were essentially null. The same is undoubtedly true in most other states. But there are likely a handful of key states where you could do a lot more to quantify the voting habits of the 1992 electorate.

Anyway, it is interesting to note Trump's general comment. He has quite a knack for hyperbole.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-08   11:36:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nativist nationalist (#3)

RINO's seem to think of votes as an entitlement program.

Yep. Their believe all conservatives are on their plantation by default -- same as the blacks vis a vis the Dem Party. Perot tried...and failed to break the two-party monopoly ONLY because he and his family were threatened.

NOW is the time to finally tear the corrupt RNC-elite led GOP into shreds. The question is whether Cruz can win without their support ( they routinely collude with the Dems.) Between Cruz and Trump, the entire fake house of RNC cards come tumbling down. LET IT.

A business model that takes for granted a certain percentage of market share, and then pisses all over that segment of the market is destined for failure.

It's taken too long...but better late than never. ALL it takes is TWO determined, committed high-profile people like Cruz and Trump. Now only if only others would join this mutiny. NOW...now....NOW!!

The RINO's really have turned the GOP into the stupid party, an evolutionary dead-end who's primary objective is to import democrat voters to appease the left wing globalist billionaires of the donor class.

No doubt; The RNC's RINOs are the Germans at Malmedy; They wear American GI garb. Underneath the (R) garb are Dem SS unis.

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-08   11:43:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: TooConservative (#4)

Like I said, my opinion is based on my personal knowledge of a number of people. Also, like I said, only God knows for sure.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-07-08   11:50:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative (#4)

Anyway, it is interesting to note Trump's general comment. He has quite a knack for hyperbole

yes he does indeed. I also don't believe him . I want a Shermanesque declaration of intent .

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-07-08   11:51:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: TooConservative, Stoner (#4) (Edited)

Anyway, it is interesting to note Trump's general comment. He has quite a knack for hyperbole.

I don't think Trump has been hyperbolic at all; The truth now only seems blinding in stark contrast to the 24/7/365 lies our eyes and ears and hearts have been trained to believe has *been* the truth. In other words, he's RUINING THE TWO-PARTY CHARADE, the roles, AND the usual rancid script.

As to the parallels of Perot and Trump, both tapped into fiscal spigot; Although is Trump's case, he has tapped into an electorate that recognizes the the insult upon all our collective intelligence. He is openly exposing the lies, neglect, and vulnerabilities of current collusive policies of the RNC and DNC that have created real economic AND physical dangers for the average American.

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-08   12:00:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: TooConservative, Stoner, A K A Stone (#0) (Edited)

Trump said. "I think every single vote that went to Ross Perot came from [George H.W.] Bush...Virtually every one of his 19 percentage points came from the Republicans. If Ross Perot didn't run, you have never heard of Bill Clinton."

Most likely, at least 3/4 of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush. I knew people who were past stout Republicans, backing Perot campaign. An appreciable diminished electorate of Bush voters was just fine with the Elites in order that Klintoon would be THE benefactor...AND President.

Thus, it is MY speculation that Perot's function was exactly TO help siphon votes away from Poppy Bush in order that Klintoon would win; THAT was THE Plan of both party elites in the first place. For anyone who remembers the 1992 campaign, we know that POPPY BUSH RAN TO LOSE.

What the elites did NOT expect was Perot's stellar showing and support which began climbing precariously in the polls and rather late in the campaign. This threatened Klintoon's election as the elites' selection. Perot actually MIGHT have won the 1992 election -- he had ALL the momentum. Yes, UNTIL he was threatened.

A friend of mine told me Perot's demeanor turned around 180 degrees at her campaign office, thereby ruining morale. The threat of Perot worked.

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-08   12:14:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Liberator (#5)

No doubt; The RNC's RINOs are the Germans at Malmedy; They wear American GI garb. Underneath the (R) garb are Dem SS unis.

Excellent analogy!

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-07-08   12:14:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: nativist nationalist (#10)

;-)

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-08   12:15:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: TooConservative (#0)

Byron York:

"Donald Trump's 2016 presidential run seems custom-made for a third party. The billionaire developer has never held political office, never run as a Republican or Democrat."

Since when does "holding a political office" validate the ability to run and organize JACKSQUAT?? Truth is, Trump's "qualifications" are perfect to run the corporation known as "The United States of America."

In stark contrast, 0blabla was a "Communitah Organizer." A Racketeer. HOW exactly did his "skill set" of organizing thugs, extortion, intimidation, propaganda, lies, and rabble-rousing benefit the state of Illinois as a state Senator (where he accomplished NOTHING)? How did his "political office" experience (where he bailed on his obligation to the State of Illinois) benefit the American people?

The longer Trumps remains on the attack of BOTH parties, the more beneficial it is. If he hangs in, ALL the issues conservatives have wanted to be discussed by Republicans since 1992 and addressed FINALLY will be; as they are even now.

Frankly, I don't care whether Trump runs as a Pubbie OR Third Party. Just as long as he perseveres and remains a candidate till the end. And if it smashes the RNC's little "Trans-Pubbie" scam into a million pieces, it'll all be worth it.

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-08   12:35:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Liberator (#9)

Most likely, at least 3/4 of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush. I knew people who were past stout Republicans, backing Perot campaign.

You know as little about political history and fact as a tree stump.

rlk  posted on  2015-07-08   12:53:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: rlk (#13)

You know as little about political history and fact as a tree stump.

What part of "most likely" did you miss, Einstein?

And I guess I should merely forget all my own personal experiences at the time, contacts -- as well as the good friend of mine and her first-hand report while working at a major Perot campaign HQ?

YOU are simply an idiot who keeps on resisting the notion that you were never as sharp and informed as you ever imagined.

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-08   13:04:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: TooConservative (#0)

Good. I hope he does if he doesn't get it. That way I can vote for him.

So unless you want Hillary you better botre Trump. He and Cruz are the only ones who can beat her.

All of the other candidates are her.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-07-08   13:32:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Liberator (#12)

The billionaire developer has never held political office, never run as a Republican or Democrat."

Last guy in the Oval Office who could say that was Ike. And we've not had as good a president since he left the office.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-07-08   14:34:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: TooConservative (#0)

What Trump ought to do is run hard, with his mouth wide open, throughout the primary season: build support in every state, get Republicans behind him - and angry at the other Republican candidates.

Get independents excited too.

Then, if he gets the nomination, go beat Hillary.

And if he doesn't, declare that his campaign will continue and take himself and his apparatus and most of his motivated voters, and the independents too, right out of the GOP.

And then, as an Independent, call on Democrats to abandon useless Hillary and join him.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-10   10:58:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

The dream of Perot never dies, eh?

Unfortunately, that is just a way to elect another Xlinton. Perhaps the only way another Xlinton can win the WH.

Frankly, I find it a little disingenuous that you pretend to take Trump seriously. You know quite well what an arrogant, impulsive gasbag and carnival barker he really is. I assume your new enthusiasm for Trump is primarily just your longstanding desire for unending GOP defeats, even assuming that Hitlery will pack the Court so full of liberals that all the things you say you oppose most (abortion, sodomy marriage, etc.) will certainly become ironclad constitutional law.

And spare me your third-party fantasies. The American system is far too resistant to any third-party. Third parties only succeed in dividing enough votes to elect the opponent the partisans oppose most (Republicans voting for Perot in '92, Dems voting for Nader in 2000, etc.).

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-10   11:50:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: TooConservative (#18)

I assume your new enthusiasm for Trump is primarily just your longstanding desire for unending GOP defeats, even assuming that Hitlery will pack the Court so full of liberals that all the things you say you oppose most (abortion, sodomy marriage, etc.) will certainly become ironclad constitutional law.

Not completely true.

Yes, Trump is a carnival barker, but I agree with what he has said recently. And the Republicans and Democrats are both wrong on that very issue.

I would prefer to see Trump in the White House over Clinton, Sanders or any Republican.

The Supreme Court full of Republicans has ALREADY given us abortion law and made it ironclad, given us Obamacare - twice!, given us Kelo, given us gay marriage, given us the unending parade of disasters since 1969. So you can emote away on how the Democrats are "worse", but in the real world, ALL of the disasters we have had imposed on us by the Court since 1969 have been imposed by Republican nominees, and I blame it on the Republicans, not the Democrats.

It is true, I really hate the GOP and I want to see them defeated every time. I don't like the Democrats because they're authoritarian babykillers, and I don't want to see them win either, but given what the Republicans have done to this country through their Supreme Court and their idiot economics - and their unending refusal to face reality on the need for the social safety net - I do generally want to see them go down in flames now, even though I voted for them year after year. I was a duped rube, and I know it. I once was blind, but now I see. I see and I hate, even though that means the Democrats win, and I despise them too.

That is why I look for a third party, an Independent, something to break the monopoly of the crapweasel Republicans and their Democrat homologues.

I do believe that robust public education, Social Security and health insurance are absolutely fundamental features of the necessary infrastructure. I find Democrats agree with that more than Republicans.

I don't support the wars, which both parties do support.

I don't support abortion, which the Republicans gave us and pretend to oppose, and which Democrats support.

I don't support illegal immigration or a path to citizenship. I do support an amnesty with back-taxes and residency, but never the vote, ever.

I don't support militarism, the empire, the prison state or the drug war.

I don't care about gay marriage or gun laws. I don't "oppose sodomy marriage most". I don't CARE about it.

I support eliminating the tax codes and replacing them with a unitary gross wealth tax.

I'll spare you my third party fantasies. I see no prospect of them. What I foresee is the victory of social insurance, which means the continuation of universal public education, eventually extending to college education because of the crushing debt burden, and the establishment of universal single-payer health insurance, and the continuation of Social Security and Medicare, as well as poverty relief (food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) These things are necessary, and I see my view progressively winning over time.

I do not see a victory ever on the cards over abortion. I see that it will continue on and on. But I do see the "on demand in any trimester" aspect of it being eventually limited.

I think gay marriage is here to stay, and I don't care.

I think gun control will gradually increase, as shootings continue and the Hispanics come to replace the aging whites as the political majority. Eventually the whites will be a minority and gun control will be imposed. I don't really agree, but I care as much about that as you do about Independents.

Over time, I see the population of the USA being replaced by Hispanics, due to immigration, birth rate, and white contraception and abortion. It makes perfect logical biological sense that this should be so, and it does not offend me. I understand Spanish ok, and I share a base religion with these people, and find them more generally friendly, agreeable and "like me" than angry Protestant yahoos whom I find impossible to get along with or form any permanent alliance with - because they are totalitarian in their ethos. Their religion is demanding, but illogical, and accepts all sorts of hypocrisies regarding money, power and history that I won't overlook. They obsess about features of Catholicism they don't like, and once again, I don't particularly care.

So, as I look forward over the next 50 years of my life, I see a country that gradually evolves my way in every important thing except abortion, and I am untroubled by it. But I'd prefer to see it change more rapidly, and in really right directions - and that's not going to happen with secular Democrats.

So I keep TRYING with Catholics, and Orthodox, and the Protestants. That's what this is all about.

But I've been doing this long enough to know it's a fool's errand. Still, I'm a fool enough to keep it up.

And truth is, the Republicans have just been so obviously, so nakedly and visibly awful in the past few months, especially with the Republican Supreme Court's decisions on gay marriage and Obamacare, that when I go after them and point out WHAT THEY ARE, I have gotten more head nods even here than before.

The jig is up for those shitstain Republicans and their crony capitalist party. Conservatives who currently vote for them have a choice: form a new party, or be ruled by Democrat policies for the rest of my life.

I'd PREFER that conservatives be reasonable, because there's a lot better way to provide the social safety net and defense and law enforcement than the heavy-handed Democrat way. But if they won't be, if you're just going to cling bitterly to the Republican Party like an idol, well, then you're just going to lose and lose, and then lose some more.

I'm going to keep losing on abortion and the empire, get half a loaf on the social safety net. It's not great, but it looks like I have to live with it.

We could have better, but for that to happen, we'd need a new party, because there's no hope of it getting done with the Republicans or the Democrats.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-10   15:11:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: TooConservative (#18)

Unfortunately, that is just a way to elect another Xlinton.

Well, then you Republicans will have a choice: vote for Trump, or get Clinton.

You had that choice with Perot too: vote for Perot, or get Clinton.

I don't regret my vote for Perot in 1992. It meant Clinton, and I was ok with that. The alternative, letting Bush 41 have the White House again after I read his lips and he lied to my face with them, well, getting rid of him was worth putting up with 8 years of Clinton. Yes it was.

If I could go back to 1992, knowing what I know now, I would still vote for Perot, because he was the best candidate. The only question is whether you Republicans would also vote for Perot, to defeat Clinton, or if you'd go through 8 years of Clinton AGAIN, just to block Perot, even though he was clearly the better man.

From listening to you guys, I'm confident that you'd give the White House to Clinton rather than letting Perot win.

And you'll give the White House to Hillary rather than let Trump win.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-10   15:15:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#20)

I'm confident that you'd {The GOPe] give the White House to Clinton rather than letting Perot win.

And you'll give the White House to Hillary rather than let Trump win.

I agree with your premise... But just to be clear, we ARE discussing the values and wishes of the Establishment Republicans and their Vichy RNC leadership (which hate and reject constitutional, Tea Party and social/economic conservatism more the Dem Party.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-10   15:49:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: nativist nationalist, rlk (#16)

Last guy in the Oval Office who could say that was Ike.

True, ain't it?

Ike was a war hero, a proven leader. Bi-partisan Patriotism was still coursing through the veins of BOTH parties. It was impossible to screw up a post-WWII economy. His only real concern was punctuating the war in Korea and keeping the USSR at bay. (He could have done a better job at targeting gubmint Commie spies and subversives.)

What was really impressive about Ike was his warning about the "Military-Industrial Complex" as he left office. And also his moderating presence for a post war America -- as well as jettisoning the invading illegals.

We've not had as good a president since he left the office.

Arguably. Reagan had to deal with a whole s***-load of baggage -- military, economic and social -- while NWO hyenas nipping at his heels during his entire 8 years. He was NOT their choice.

Reagan was sandwiched in between Carter -- who trashed the military as you well know; had to deal with the loose ends from the end of the war in Nam. Immediately, Poppy's 'Operation: Iraqi Quagmire' began the perpetual war America's elites have waged since.

There were TWO eras when I believe America felt like "America" since WWII: Ike and Reagan presided over them.

What say you, Robert, as an observer of the culture, and as one who had an intimate feel for a number of Presidential eras?

I will give JFK a few points for providing a healthy optimism for America when we'd begun to run out of steam near 1960, as well as pondering rejecting the Federal Reserve's scheme (even if his policies in addressing Cub-er and the Soviets was a mess.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-10   16:11:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Liberator (#21)

But just to be clear, we ARE discussing the values and wishes of the Establishment Republicans and their Vichy RNC leadership (which hate and reject constitutional, Tea Party and social/economic conservatism more the Dem Party.)

I'm talking about the Republican Party as it really is: the men and women who control it, who provide its money and set its policies. Tea Partiers and the socio-economic conservatives are the duped rubes of the Republican Plantation; the Charlie Browns for whom Lucy always removes the football, always. These are the folks who THINK they're stalwart Republicans, and who vote that way, but who are, in truth, the Republican equivalent of Black ghetto Democrat voters: people who always vote Democrat, who are flattered by the real Democrats, and who get nothing but crumbs.

You and I are that: ghetto Republicans (or former), duped rubes, Charlie Browns. We're the Bubbas for whom the Real Republicans provide the boob bait, to get our votes, our petty little contributions, and our tongues to lick envelopes and make phone calls. The rank-and-file who feel "part" of the "Grand Old Party", but who really are just cattle feed.

The Establishment Republicans are, and always will be, the masters of the Republican Party. There is no way to "take over" the Country Club.

Eventually, smart people get kicked in the teeth enough to realize that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-10   18:02:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Liberator (#22)

Yep: Ike, JFK and Reagan. They were leaders. They had vision. They were, of course, imperfect. All men are. But they could lead people, move them, shape events. And they did.

It's too bad for the country, and particularly for the Democrats, that JFK was cut down. Because what replaced him - LBJ - was just disastrous.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-10   18:05:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Liberator, vicomte13 (#22) (Edited)

JFK was the beginning of the end of this country. He was the first Bill Clinton. He was a vaudevillian media creation who could say nothing of substance for hours with finger-pointing staccato delivery and captivate dumb clucks in the crowds and in the media. There was a book entitled "JFK the Man and the Myth" that revealed Kennedy for what he was, but ceased publication upon his death to protect the image of the "poor fallen president." He was on his way out, but his death saved his image and reputation. People like Arthur Slesinger began to write books and articles by the handfull to romantacize and eulogize him.

He gave Cuba to Castro and caved in to the Russians. Khruschev could play him like a fiddle.

rlk  posted on  2015-07-10   22:12:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com