Why I “Still” Support Donald Trump – Part 3 “The Intellectual Argument”…

Candidate Jeb Bush attends Chamber of Commerce dinner with Fox's Rupert Murdoch and Valerie Jarrett (December 2014)

Candidate Jeb Bush attends Chamber of Commerce dinner with Fox’s Rupert Murdoch and Valerie Jarrett (December 2014)

update-1Given the transparent, albeit predictable, bias brutally evident in last nights debate, I’m going to leave this stuck to the top of the page for half the day.

patriotIn Part ONE I explained why Donald Trump’s candidacy was essentially a “nothing to lose” decision for conservatives, because all paths lead to Jeb Bush.

In Part TWO I explained why there is a severity within my position.

Here in Part THREE, as requested, I’ll expand for those who remain critical; and for those who are finding themselves called out as “ridiculous” for having the audacity to present such a non-traditional approach.

Starting with an actual defense (via comment) left by someone who presents the counter argument to my position of the GOP needing to be torn down.  The counter-argument encapsulates many traditional political followers. Here is their point:

First of all, there a difference between the GOP and the Democrats. If there had been a GOP president instead of Obama, we would not have Obamacare, or all the regulations he’s issued, or all the idiotic DOJ civil rights investigations, or the two liberal SC justices he has appointed (which in turn lead to liberal SC decisions for years to come).

Second of all, destroying the GOP as it exists today will only lead to a smaller minority party which will never win a presidential contest, and probably gift the Democrats with permanent control of Congress.

Finally, Donald Trump wrote in 2000 that he favored a single-payer healthcare system like Canada, and told O’Reilly in 2012 that illegals should be given a pathway to citizenship. Viewing him as a “tool’ to defeat Obamacare and amnesty can most charitably be described as bizarre.

Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want, and you frequently must settle for a choice that’s simply better than the alternative. You can’t just take your ball and go home.

Various forms of this argument are found dispersed amid the various blogs and comment sections therein; but essentially the essential argument is the same.  So here’s the intellectual reply.

Less Democrat less Republican more constitution

There is absolutely no difference between the current GOP and Democrats.  Both are intent on the expansion of government.

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

SCOTUS ?  Justice Roberts (I remind you a GOP Presidential nominee, swooned upon by Jeb Bush) affirmed ObamaCare, not once, but twice.  And guess what, his vote counted with the same weight as Justice Elena Kagen.

♦ Regarding Obamacare and the GOP:

• First, Medicaid, as a construct, is already single payer healthcare – the problem is the beneficiaries therein, by design, don’t necessarily pay into it.

• Second, ObamaCare if you will remember honestly, was created by Democrats, yes. However, After the election of Scott Brown (who became the 41st vote to block its passage) Obamacare was created by changing the Senate rules to strip an existing bill and use the process of “reconciliation”, a budgetary gimmick, to allow ObamaCare to be constructed with only 51 votes in the Senate – A simple majority. President Obama famously said numerous times “the electorate doesn’t care about the process, they care about the outcome“.

As a consequence, ask yourself: why didn’t the Senate use the EXACT SAME PROCESS (in reverse) when we gave them even larger majorities in the House (’10, ’12, ’14) and the Senate (’14) to eliminate it?

Why didn’t repeal legislation fly through the same single-party process to remove it, that created it? ObamaCare could be removed with the same exact process as it was created.

I know what you’re thinking – the GOP says President Obama would veto it, so the effort would be futile. So what?

We elected them to remove ObamaCare. DO IT, or at the very least TRY!

Wait, you said the GOP did try?  BULLSHIT !!  Try repeal without holding a divergent higher-standard for repeal than the original construct.

Oh, now you’re silent eh?

Why doesn’t Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hold the same level of severity, based on principle, as Majority Leader Harry Reid?

The answer is actually because McConnell and the GOP are quite ok with ObamaCare because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Tom Donohue) wanted it. The GOP doesn’t remove it, because the GOP gets a dual benefit.  The benefit of its existence while simultaneously the benefit of saying they didn’t create it. Nice political gimmick eh?

But the argument, on behalf of the establishment, is to claim:  “if the GOP was in control ObamaCare wouldn’t exist”.

♦ But really there’s more.

Not trying to be wonky, but it’s important to argue with fact:

Who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs? The GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say.

Sorry, the reality is not what the GOP claim.

The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

eat-your-own-damn-peas1But it’s worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP were insufferably inept during this process.

♦ The GOP (BUSH) removed tax liability from the lower income levels; and the DEM’s (President Obama) then lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc).

This means lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates with the increased demand for tax spending within the welfare programs.

Who gets screwed?  WE DO !

PARADIGM SHIFT => Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Dem’s, lowered the revenue and set themselves up to be played within the increased need for spending, simultaneously.

The Republicans and Democrats created the economic and budgetary mess specifically because they didn’t let the (what was supposed to be temporary) tax rates sunset.

A conservative position would have been to leverage the sunset provision to get something fiscally responsible out of it, like a balanced budget, DUH. And if need be to walk away.

But why didn’t/wouldn’t this approach work?  Why didn’t the GOP even attempt to leverage the pending expiration of the tax rates for fiscal responsibility?

The answer therein cuts to the heart of the problem with the GOP.

Think about this carefully.

The absolute best representative face the GOP can come up with to advance common sense principles of fiscal prudence is Mitch McConnell and John Boehner?

Really? I mean, REALLY?

McConnell and Boehner

Neither McConnell or Boehner can present themselves to a modern engaged, pop culture driven electorate, and simultaneously articulate a single principle or standard for the party, without sounding like that doddering fool down the road with the signs on his law forbidding anyone to dare touch the grass (McConnell); -OR- The washed up, profoundly creepy middle-aged drunk guy at the end of the bar hitting on your 20-year-old daughter?

Harsh? No, try reality.  THAT is the face of the GOP.

THIS…… This is the face of the GOP? Mr. Mumbles and Sir Cry-a-lot?  Good grief, no wonder Democrats are always grinning.

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of pushback? McConnell and Boehner are what you give us? SERIOUSLY?

Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. You say:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering we have been simply demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a F**KING BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO F**KING BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s your GOP strategy?  Essentially:  Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?


Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

Additionally, to put a fine-point on this “you-can’t-get-everything-you-want” aspect, name one thing that conservatives have gotten from delivering the House in ’10, and ’12, and ’14; and the Senate, to the GOP again, in ’14? How many Bills have been constructed, passed and forced upon Obama to sign or veto in the past year?

Oh yeah, ZERO. That’s the sum total of the GOP pushback?

Give.Me.A.Break !

Go sell your crazy someplace else because I’m full up to here with it.

Oh, and let’s not forget:


Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

And while I’m at it, let’s talk about the “other possibility” Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz 2I’m not one of these people who just began tracking the candidates. I speak from watching them for years, and writing about what they chose to do when they have a choice to do something.

Ted Cruz actually had decision moments.

His choices, when they would have made a difference, were to work with the GOPe machine to undermine conservatives.

Follow the links, as I said – I’m done being co-dependent to my own abuse:

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz openly said in 2014 they would not support challenges to incumbency, thereby supporting the McConnell Establishment class.

Now think about this carefully:

Both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were elected by grassroots support despite the Establishment class against them.  Yet when they join the senate they align with the very people who worked to keep them out, and refused to assist the very change they campaigned and promised to bring.  (LINK) -> (LINK)

The least worst of the rest of the candidates might be Ted Cruz,  I would argue that to be true.  But don’t believe for a moment he is not part of the GOPe Machine.

Cruz gave $240,000 to the NRSCC in 2014. The NRSCC, at the exact moment he gave the money, was entirely framed to eliminate opposition to Mitch McConnell and carry the goals of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

What did the NRSCC do with the money? They paid Democrats to vote against Chris McDaniel, and paid for racist attack ads to support Thad Cochran. Despite the anxiety it might create, this is a FACT.

Tell me again all about “Mr. Principle”.

If Trump shows up to the next debate in 5″ stiletto heels and a banana costume and starts twerking the podium of Jeb Bush I might consider Ted Cruz again, maybe not.

Or if Donald Trump drops out, I’ll have no choice except to support Ted Cruz.  But I’ll be doing so with eyes-wide-open, knowing I’m just, yet again, putting bondo over the rust…

….. And we still won’t have a border wall.


American Patriot

This entry was posted in Big Stupid Government, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

225 Responses to Why I “Still” Support Donald Trump – Part 3 “The Intellectual Argument”…

  1. Mark Hodges says:

    There were two parts to the gotcha question from Beir.
    The question was raise your hand if :
    You’d support the GOP nominee
    Would you run 3rd party if you weren’t the nominee.
    Trump may have being saying he would not support any amnesty nominee like Bush or Rubio.
    He has already stated he will not run 3rd party.
    I will not vote in the general election if Bush or Rubio are the nominees….period.

    Liked by 2 people

    • wasntme says:

      I think Trump said if the GOP treated him like crap he would consider 3rd party.

      Liked by 1 person

      • formercanuck says:

        ‘IF’ Trump were to push himself as a Republican only, then eGOP would effectively gang up and railroad him out of the running. He has weak kneed people like Rand Paul worried, thinking that he’s a ‘buddy’ to Hillary, who just wants the conservative party to lose, effectively making it another Democratic victory (2 party system weakness), or go the effective Tea Party method, and water down the base, while taking shots at eGOP and Hillary along the way.

        Trump is in a relatively good position – the question is –
        a) Can he win the leadership? (I’m doubtful here, but I’d vote for him over a Democrat).
        b) If it came down to a 3 party race – would you vote for him ? (Based on current nominees and Koch brothers vs. Hillary, I probably would)
        c) Who would you vote for it not Donald ? I see many true leaders – just a large field of money followers. Weed out those that you don’t want:
        1. Jeb (Bush says half of it… crony)
        2. Ben Carson ( I like his positive attitude/intellect – he may not have experience needed here though)
        3. Christie (Crony – bridgegate, )
        4. Ted Cruz – ( crony, gave up his Canadian citizenship, too young)
        5. Carly Fiorina – (she’s a wildcard – smart, hard been battle tested @HP – she’ll stick around, but I don’t trust her)
        6. Jim Gilmore ( a quiet riser – I don’t have any dirt at this point)
        7. Lindsey Graham – ( No! – Trust issues here)
        8. Huckabee – (On the plus, he’s smart, very well spoken. On the negative – too much evangelical Christian for the country – he’ll never make president)
        9. Bobby Jindal – Too young, Katrina
        10. Kashich – Fox & Friends – need I say more
        11. Rand Paul – He’ll be out shortly – He’s off the wagon
        12. Rick Perry – Good conservative, but the USA != Texas
        13. Macro Rubio – Too young/inexperienced
        14. Rick Santorum – Crony . Rick Santorum truncated = Rectum or Sanitorium
        15. Trump = True wild card
        16. Scott Walker = Don’t know him well enough
        17. George Pataki = Someone that could be a governor somewhere. Attempting to use his past for presidency.


    • truthseekerr says:

      I guess Fox doesn’t like Trump. It’s obvious. Trump is smart to distance himself from Fox. He will get so many independent AND democratic votes if he continues to SPEAK UP. People want a real leader who is not afraid to engage, especially with polished Fox republican employees. Sorry but the BUSH name is SO tainted he would never win. I would not vote for him either.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Obomination says:

      This was the question:

      “Is there anyone on stage—can I see hands—who is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee of the Republican Party and pledge to not run an independent campaign against that person?”

      And all but Trump pledged to support Jeb Bush if he is coronated. They will all support a DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jay says:

      Don’t stay away from the polls. If Bush or Rubio is the candidate, vote for one of the constitutionalist parties. Or write-in Trump or Kevin McDonald.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Joanne Trout says:

      He did NOT say he would NOT run as a third party….that option is still open..and it would be a mute point if everyone would just get behind him.. but alas the divide will continue because there are too many that vote party not country.


      • Don Mellon says:

        If Trump ran as a third party candidate that would mean the reason the author supports Trump would be invalid. The author wants Trump to be a Republican president because that would destroy the GOPe. He didn’t say but if Trump was the losing Republican candidate then it seems the GOPe would survive.


      • Mimi says:

        That option is no longer viable. There is no 3rd party with the organizarion to put him on the ballot of all states by the deadlines. It has to be Trump must win as a republican. Some days I have my doubts because the opposing battle fronts are so numerous, so well funded and so violent. But then a little light breaks through and I think he will make it. So I have to stay with that. Trump has to make it or the USA will experience a major depression and I don’t mean financial. Pass the valium!


    • Johnny Marshall says:

      What I just read in the above document just made me sick. I am for Mr. Trump all the way.


  2. manickernel says:

    I agree with everything said here SD. I also watched the entire debate last night, and don’t think Trump will go the distance. My own personal take was that Cruz, Walker, Huckabee and Rubio were the “winners” if you can even use that term. Trump unfortunately came off exactly as the arrogant clout being portrayed by the media. A breath of fresh air, a fearless candidate that can take out the ossified Republican hierarchy, but in the end the wrong man for the job.

    I also like Carly, but she is going to have to stop being a one trick pony.

    Rubio surprised me. He basically took Trump’s argument about Mexico being smarter and agreed, along with supporting the building of a barrier but pointing out that the cartels would just tunnel under it. Rubio went on to lay out an intelligent position of a layered barrier. Whether he means it or not, that is another question.

    Walker did not shine, but he did score some points. This is a guy that has taken on the public employee sector and won. The growing public employee unions along with other Democratic dependent lamprey groups are a major issue in my book.

    Cruz came across as intelligent, incisive, and presidential. Just restoring some respectability and class to the Office of the Presidency is sorely needed.

    Jeb sounded good, we don’t need or want another Bush.

    Oh, I now fully agree with your analysis of the harpy Megyn Kelly after last nights display.


    • Coast says:

      I guess you and I didn’t watch the same program. Trump drop-kicked Ran Paul in the opening with Paul took a shot, Carson sounded weak and out of his element, Bush was weak and tried to back away from his policy positions (especially Common Core), and Trump was asked the most personal questions and still dominated the night. About the only thing we agree on is Cruz.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Deserttrek says:

    watched what i could stomach as it got much better from the middle on. still backing trump, carly, carson, and warily cruz …… cruz is either very cagey or a good liar.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. michellc says:

    I’ve watched many debates in my lifetime and I’ve never seen a candidate attacked by the moderators like last night.
    I still don’t like Trump and I still don’t trust Trump, but I am now supporting Trump because last night convinced me if they want to destroy him this bad he’s the biggest threat to their plan.

    Liked by 2 people

    • truthseekerr says:

      Yea why is Fox so against Trump? Do they want to lose again? Do they get their ratings from whining about Obama and Democrats all day and night? Are they trying to loose on purpose? They attacked everyone pretty hard!


      • formercanuck says:

        Fox is against Trump because eGOP and Rupert Murdoch are part of the old crony network. Trump can’t be bought (easily) while all other candidates typically bend over backwards (both parties) for donors/fundraisers.
        Trump has no puppet strings to pull, so they have no choice but to attack him as if he was the enemy.


  5. tappin52 says:

    I have a few worries that I need calmed. I don’t have a problem with Trump’s “debate” (aka firing squad) performance per se, but I do think that he needs to put a bit more meat on the bones of his campaign points. “China is beating us” and “Mexico is beating us” isn’t going to carry him for the next year and a half.

    Also, this morning on F&F he called Frank Luntz a fat pig. That made me cringe. Luntz has set him up a few times (McCain kerfuffle) and last night he was every bit as obnoxious as Megyn Kelly. But even Steve Doocy was forced to stand up for Luntz. OTOH, my husband absolutely loves Trump’s bash-em-in-the-face style.

    Liked by 2 people

    • lovely says:

      Did Trump really call Luntz a fat pig this morning?

      If so I don’t mind.

      We as a nation and individuals should be far more upset that the sitting POTUS and the Heir to thrown Sir Hillary consider butchered babies bio-medical waste. Wait; Correction, butchered babies are no longer bio-medical waste they are now valuable body parts.

      I wonder if Kelly will ask Hillary about her evolving thoughts on the unborn from a blob of cells to viable and valuable parts to be sold on the free market. Somehow I doubt it.

      As Donald said, the time for worrying about hurting peoples feelings is over, America is no longer viable, if Luntz’s feelings are hurt he should lose weight and stop acting like a pig.

      Liked by 2 people

    • smarty says:

      that seems very crude and rude and not presidential. I mean, there are a lot of fat Americans, Trump needs to tone down the fat comments.


      • lovely says:

        I think Trump does pose the risk of offending overweight people, but I think Trump is very specific in who he targets and he doe not generalize by saying things like a candidates supporters are “thousands of crazies” .

        IMO what Luntz did do, was piggish and he is overweight so Trump’s description of Luntz, while offensive to some is none the less accurate. Still, should Trump call a fat pig a fat pig, probably not. Are we at a tipping point in America were Trump’s comments will resonate for their intent with more people than they will offend, that question is above my pay grade.


      • slob is what I saw.


      • Joanne Trout says:

        Not presidential what the heck is that? I’m sick and tired of someone looking presidential then acting like buffoons.. Just because someone looks the part does not mean they can play the part. With Trump you know just what your going to get. So this oh he’s not presidential bs does not hold up to the wash.


    • doodahdaze says:

      Duntz … Fat Pig….ROFL!

      Liked by 1 person

    • mcfyre2012 says:

      “…but I do think that he needs to put a bit more meat on the bones of his campaign points.”

      Indeed. Trump needs to start getting a bit more specific on his points. Thus far, he has tough-sounding, but he has been general and ambiguous on specifics on what he would do.


    • Obomination says:

      Calling a statist propagandist a fat pig is a revenue enhancer for me.


  6. I have to admit SD was so right about M Kelly. Cruz was my main pick till he reminded me of his support of Mc Connell. TERRIBLE!
    Trump’s excuse for giving to Dems was NY pay to play in business. Don’t forget if POTUS, Donald will STILL be a business man & will know how to “play the game”.
    I believe if Trump & Cruz teamed up they would be the best team to Make America Great Again.
    If Trump chooses anyone else I couldn’t support whole heartedly.

    Liked by 1 person

    • crispyjoe says:

      I can forgive Cruz for his support of McConnel. He was a freshman senator at the time and you just can’t go out and make enemies of all people in DC, especially your own party leadership. Cruz at the time needed political allies even if they do not agree with him all the time.

      Hopefully when he called McConnel and the party leadership liars on the Senate floor is how he really thinks of the party leadership now.

      Liked by 4 people

    • I hate to admit it, but I, too, found Megyn Kelly completely full of herself last night. She couldn’t care less about giving her viewing public facts and information about the next President of the United States. Her questions were disrespectful & irrelevant! Transvestites in the military is the topic she raised with (former preacher) Mike Huckabee. Really?

      Anti-women issues with Donald Trump? How many THOUSANDS of women work for and earn a great living from that man? Message to Megyn, if you insult and attack Donald Trump, he will fight back.

      She did her best to shine a critical light on Donald Trump’s macho comportment. Not all women like wimps, most of us like strong, hard-charging, smart, opinionated winners. Those kinds of men have high testosterone levels and strong sex drives. Big effing deal! I’ve never met a successful man who wasn’t into sex! And I like how Trump gives back the crap that’s hurled at him, like that nasty lesbian, Rosie O’Donnell!

      Liked by 2 people

    • yankeeintx says:

      Personally, I don’t think not endorsing a challenger is an endorsement for an incumbent. Cruz did not endorse McConnell, he stayed out of it completely. He endorsed a few local candidates in Texas, but stayed out of Senate primaries.

      Liked by 1 person

      • sundance says:

        Sorry, but silence in the face of adversity is the same as supporting it. Especially when Cruz was a benefactor over Dewhurst specifically because others refused to remain silent.

        And you skip the whole part where Cruz gave the NRSCC money to attack Chris McDaniels and pay for Dems to vote in the second GOP primary.

        If Cruz wanted to own up to his mistake and say he made a horrible mistake and should have fully defended conservatives and given full throated support (ie. like Jim Demint), there’s a considerable probability of forgiveness and moving on.

        Alas, no such luck.


        • yankeeintx says:

          If he supported McConnell and Cochran, why did he raise funds for their opponents?
          “He drew the ire of colleagues in 2013 by raising money for the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), which backed primary challengers to now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.).”
          So Cruz caught flak for supporting SCF, and caught flak for supporting NRSC, so you’ve put him in a “d@mned if you do, d@mned if you don’t” situation. Why would Cruz have raised funds in support of McDaniels and then donate to have him attacked?
          In this thread you claim he was upset by the actions and we now know that he did make the decision to leave NRSC. Now, you are alleging that he supported their efforts to attack McDaniel.


          • sundance says:

            “I’ve put him in a damned if you do, and damned if you don’t position”?

            I did that?

            No, actually I don’t control anything Cruz does. You might not like to face that sunlight, but he’s responsible for his own decisions. Not me.

            ps. He left the NRSC after the election was over. Damage done.

            Try again.


            • yankeeintx says:

              What I meant was that you don’t acknowledge that he also raised funds for SCF to support McDaniel, and you seem to allege that he condoned their actions against McDaniel. I don’t get that impression at all. He did take a hiatus from NRSC, but refused to resign.
              FTA: (on your previous thread)

              “Cruz is furious at the NRSC for its involvement in the Mississippi primary to boost Cochran over challenger Chris McDaniel. After losing the June 24 runoff, in which national Republicans spent late money to help the six-term incumbent, McDaniel and his supporters are looking to challenge the result, citing evidence of illegal crossover voting from black Democrats.”
              “When I signed on as vice-chair of the NRSC it was based upon an explicit commitment from leadership that the NRSC was going to stay out of primaries. Had they not made that commitment I would not have taken on that role,” he said.”

              To me it sounds like you are claiming he gave money to the NRSC specifically to attack McDaniel, and I see no evidence of that. You have made it clear that you are a huge supporter of Trump, and that’s fine, but I don’t think it’s fair to mischaracterize Cruz in order to make Trump seem more palatable.


    • Joanne Trout says:

      I could if it was Huckabee, but I think a Trump/Cruz ticket has a real good chance.


  7. Blase Blase says:

    I think the smart play is to push Carly Fiorina. Why? Simple, Do you think if Hillary Clinton ACTUALLY had a male organ she would even be where she is now? Of course not. Why did they push so hard for Obama? Why did WHITES put him in officer? It wasn’t his record, it was his skin color. If you don’t think that was the absolute driving force then your living in the clouds. The propaganda machine, which if it weren’t for Fox News would have a Monopoly on cable news, is now pushing for a female. They used up the race card ploy with Obama, now they are smartly pushing the Feminist turn to get in.

    .Why are we so dumb not to see it and utilize it against them and to our advantage? The VP could have a token penis if need be, but if you hadn’t seen the “it’s time for a woman to be in the White House” at the start of Ombama’s 2nd disaster, then you haven’t paid attention to their obvious and projected game plan. If Trump doesn’t recover in debate #02, your all smoking to think Cruz (Nixon) has a chance.


  8. rashamon says:

    In law — and we are/USED TO BE a nation built upon law, precedence rules. Therefore, I will not vote for Rubio, Cruz or Jindal. If the last seven years of the O have not proved the reasoning behind our Founders’ specific detailing that the President must be a Natural Born Citizen, clearly removed from loyalty to any other nation/religion/ethnic group, I have no idea what will convince the voters. To once again elect a person who clearly does not — or may not — have the interests of the United States as a #1 priority baffles me.

    Trump is an ego maniac, but most CEOs are. It takes such bluster and confidence to wend one’s way through all the b#ll associated with doing business at the level he occupies. A lot can happen in sixteen months; I hope he stays in the game.

    Fiorina’s presentations make her a first-rate runner for VP. The H-P debacle was an accident waiting to happen as proved after she left. Many IT companies became discombobulated during that period, but H-P had huge internal issues. She should have taken the job at Boeing instead.


    • doodahdaze says:

      The clause in the constitution means a person who is a U.S. citizen at birth with noneed to go through the naturalization process at some later time.
      To your point.
      As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”
      RE: Cruz
      Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15×
      15. See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.
      Show More
      Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution

      Liked by 1 person

    • John Galt says:

      “but H-P had huge internal issues.”

      Fiorina ran HP into the ground. Blaming “internal issues” for her 6 year HP CEO debacle is like Obozo blaming Dubya.

      Liked by 2 people

    • yankeeintx says:

      My daughter, like Ted Cruz was born in another country to a US Citizen. He was 4 years old when he moved to the US. What alliances do you think he made as a 4 year old that he has to uphold? My daughter was 18 mths when we returned to the US, what loyalties do you think she might owe to West Germany?


      • John Galt says:

        I dunno, maybe she’s eligible for both ObamaCare and GermanaCare? I had a friend who was born in France to US citizen parents, as was his brother. When his brother became sick and disabled, they had him in a nursing home in France while also collecting benefits from the US government.


        • yankeeintx says:

          Like Ted Cruz, she has renounced her dual citizenship. Taking advantage of any German benefits is not an option for her. She didn’t know she even had dual citizenship until I explained that it was automatic, and nothing I could refuse at the time of her birth.


      • rashamon says:

        My grandchildren are Army brats who have lived overseas more years than in the U.S. One was born overseas. I’m not questioning loyalty.

        I am talking precedence. According to some projections, in thirty years, if our population continues to grow in its present direction, over 50% will have a heritage from south of our border; i.e. Mexico, Central and South America. Drug Lord El Campo’s children can run for president as their mother is an American citizen and they were born in L.A. Heck, he already spends months on end setting up his compadres in Chicago, so they have a pool of worker bees for campaigning.

        Obviously, I’m kidding about El Campo’s kids, and I have no problem about the loyalty of the present candidates. But, anticipate the problem. Our Founding Fathers did. Also, The Constitution refers to citizen “parents” in the plural (two). Look at the influence O’s anti-colonialist father had on his decision-making process. How’s all that Audacity and all those Dreams working for us? By executive order, we no longer have three branches of government.

        In law, precedence matters, so we already have a problem with our present president sneaking through because no one wanted to be called racist. We have plenty of political leadership jobs to go around; the presidency (and vice presidency) hold a special position because that person is our commander-in-chief of the military, not a power that suffers fools.


        • yankeeintx says:

          Conservatives were trying to educate people about Obama’s plans and background regardless of the circumstances of his birth. “Dreams of My Father” should have tipped people off, but they ignored us.
          The problem with the theory that being born here makes you loyal just isn’t accurate. Bill Ayers would have no questions raised about eligibility, but could have run for President (minus the felony conviction), even though he hates everything about the US. Now compare Ayers with Dinesh D’Souza, an immigrant who loves his adopted country. I won’t be around forever so my prayer is that enough people educate themselves and never fall for another Obama again. There was a time when “We the People” would have hung him by now.


  9. Eskie Mom says:

    Sundance! You just about had this old gal jumping up & down & yelling YES! YES! YES!
    Fantastic, Perfect, Beautiful does not begin to cover it. You missed nothing.

    There can be only one, Mr Trump. It is you!


  10. Obomination says:

    I have not come across a blogger or writer with a better understanding of the situation than you sundance. A tip of the cap to you Sir.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Dee says:

    Did you grab Trump’s ear SD? 🙂

    “No, Trump worried about Fox News, and in particular, debate moderator Megyn Kelly. She’d been hammering him all week on her show, and he was certain she was out to get him. He’d canceled a Fox News appearance on Monday night, the friend said, in order to avoid her. (Trump’s spokeswoman wouldn’t confirm or deny this.)”



  12. barbi says:

    Oh, Donald…

    He called M. Kelly a “bimbo” and Frank Luntz a “fat slob” on his twitter account.

    This is what I feared: with these “clownish” and classless words, he undermines the important issues he raised.


    • doodahdaze says:

      PC voters will not like it. Everyone should adhere to the rules of political correct thinking so as not to offend anyone except the working white male class. He should have said Kelley is a mentally challenged blonde and Duntz is a size XXXL messy metrosexual.


      • barbi says:

        Look, man, I was a teacher. A POTUS candidate or a POTUS who exhibits this kind of language/insults gives kids the explicit message that they not only could bur should speak this way as well. “Bimbo” and “fat slob” said to millions with a large microphone (twitter) is no different than the behavior of hundreds in Ferguson.


        • Director says:

          Trump is tapping into white male working class unionized, skilled, semiskilled votes.

          Every guy on the factory floor, office, workshop has had enough of fat little men and harpy HR paper pushers.

          Trump has this. He’s nailing these fakes to the wall.


        • barbi

          Concern troll is concerned. Here’s a tissue, sweetie.


        • angie says:

          Oh, please, I was a substitute teacher for 34 years and kids say things that are cruel. If Trump had never called anyone fat or a bimbo, the kids would say it anyway and a lot worse.
          To say this not any different than the behavior in Ferguson is complete BS and you know it.


          • yankeeintx says:

            What children say at school is usually quite different than what they are allowed to say at home. How do you teach your children it’s rude to use such words when a Presidential candidate thinks it’s appropriate to do so?


            • angie says:

              Umm, when Trump said those things he was not a Presidential candidate. Do you not think that if the media kind sorta took a look at the past of the other candidates, they might just find they said something offensive? As far as I know, correct me if I’m wrong, but I have not heard that any of the candidates have walked on water. I’m won’t sit here and pretend that I have never said anything offensive, will you? Anyone who claims that they have never made an offensive remark is a liar. The faux outrage is ridiculous.

              I wonder if Hilary’s famous swearing or Anti-Semitic remarks will be brought up in a debate, if there is one? My friend’s husband was a SS agent assigned to the Clinton family and he said she was the most foul-mouthed person he had ever met.
              I won’t post them here but for anyone interested:


              • yankeeintx says:

                He said it yesterday. The bimbo statement was something he re-tweeted, and the fat slob statement was regarding the Frank Luntz focus group review of last nights debate. Are you claiming he wasn’t a Presidential candidate last night? Yes, all candidates have a past, but it does make a difference between what they did years ago, and what they did last night.
                Has Hillary put her abusive cuss words in writing and send it out in a tweet? I think she is disgusting, but I haven’t seen her do that yet. I would love it to be exposed in a debate, but you can’t pick on her, she has a vagina.


                • angie says:

                  Sorry, I thought you meant what Moogyn asked Trump about last night during the debate.
                  Hilary is a politician and a snake so, of course, she wouldn’t re tweet anything that might hurt her image. She’ll just say it behind the scenes like most slimy politicians would.

                  In any event, the topic was about kids and the effect Donald’s words might have on them. I stick by what I posted. Kids say cruel things. I doubt many of them are glued to any news channels watching Trump. If they are, I hope it isn’t FOX.


                • yankeeintx says:

                  Kids are very cruel, and always have been. I grew up with a birth defect and experienced it first hand, but I never claimed to be bullied. My mom explained to me that God made me perfect “as is”, and they were the ones with the problem if they didn’t know that. 🙂

                  Liked by 1 person

        • vladdy says:

          It is both hilarious and heartening to read comments from right after the first debate. I’m here from the future in 2017 to tell you all that Trump is turning into one of the greatest presidents ever. Some of you saw it happening from the first “..just Rosie O’Donnell.” Now THAT’S political insight!


      • silverdust says:

        Word is Luntz is gay. NTTAWWT


    • Director says:

      She’s a burner.

      Much worse than bimbo.


    • Dee says:

      He called Luntz a “low class slob”. The Kelly “bimbo” one looks like he quoted someone else in his tweet?


    • keebler AC says:

      Your language here is way worse. I’ve seen it.. You’re not fooling anyone with your diatribe about class acts. Calling someone who is a bimbo a bimbo or a fat slob a fat slob is on cue. Truth hurts.

      Liked by 1 person

    • kinthenorthwest says:

      You have no room to speak out–I have seen the Language coming from your mouth on this blog.
      H3LL actually Kelly has no room to speak either People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!!


  13. Director says:

    Two things were missing from the debate.

    1 “gay marriage is just dumb”

    2 “I’ll stop the regular summer rioting and back the cops”

    Primary over!

    The Megyn (Ebonic?) Kelly and Chris (chris really?) Wallach can go pound sand.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. dizzymissl says:

    Viewers View Salty Girls new video and they are HOT!!


    Liked by 1 person

  15. Mr. Sundance, you are amazing. Thank you so much for educating me on so many things. I agree completely that Mr. Trump is a GREAT opportunity for us, and I am hoping beyond hope that he makes it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s