[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Trump: I'm not thinking third party -- for now 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 Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16. Byron York: 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.
#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.
Replies to Comment # 16. #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.)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 16. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|