Image 01 Image 03

Trump vs. the Bush Family

Trump vs. the Bush Family

An old animus, not a new one

It’s fairly clear that there’s no love lost between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. Trump’s recent criticism of George W. Bush in relation to 9/11 has been largely seen as a way to needle Jeb and keep the friction going between them.

And it’s certainly accomplished just that.

Although that’s undoubtedly part of Trump’s motivation for his recent remarks, it doesn’t even begin to explain Trump’s long history of extremely critical and incendiary comments about GWB, which date back to many years before Trump or Jeb ever ran for president and most definitely were not sparked by their rivalry for the presidency in 2016.

On Wednesday I wrote about the subject in this article for the Weekly Standard. Here’s an excerpt:

…the sharpest of Trump’s attacks on George W. had occurred much earlier, in a series of interviews in 2007 and 2008, when neither Trump nor Jeb Bush were candidates. For example, in a 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Trump advocated Bush’s impeachment, while adding how much he likes Nancy Pelosi…

In the same interview, Trump repeated the familiar “Bush lied about WMDs” mantra, and when Blitzer questioned whether he actually believed that, Trump repeated it:

Later in the interview, Trump said that Bush “is probably the worst president in the history of the United States.” It wasn’t the first time Trump had evaluated Bush that way, either; in 2007 he had made the same charge when he agreed that Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

But perhaps the most negative ad hominem attack Trump had ever launched against George W. Bush was in a 2008 interview in which he called Bush “evil.” In the same interview, he also criticized Bush for not talking to Iran, and praised Obama in contrast, saying that he believes Obama will lead through consensus as president, and “not be a bull run, like Bush—he just did whatever the hell he wanted.”

It’s not just about Trump and Jeb. It’s not even mostly about Trump and Jeb.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Oh here we go. I expect nothing but logical and sensible comments. 🙂

Perhaps Trump blames Bush for proposing to end profiling of Arabs for political purposes before 9-11? Certainly that policy of not profiling has lead to dangerous people being allowed into our country. Sometimes after warnings by other nations or their own families. My guess is that it has nothing to do with policy and is just Trump slapping Jeb! around like a pinata some more.

It’s hard to say why he doesn’t like Bush. Trump is a dangerous opponent who knows where and how to push his opponent’s buttons. He has the instincts of a street fighter and will not pull his punches. He’s had Jeb! on the run from the beginning.

    Ragspierre in reply to forksdad. | October 23, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    “Perhaps Trump blames Bush for proposing to end profiling of Arabs for political purposes before 9-11?”

    Two points…

    1. cite to where T-rump said that, and

    2. cite to a link where Bush said that AND where he also called off investigations of anyone on that basis

      forksdad in reply to Ragspierre. | October 23, 2015 at 8:57 pm

      How about this
      1. Show me where Bush didn’t call for an end to profiling.
      2. Show me how Trump isn’t beating Jeb! like a pinata.

      Since you made the demands I’ll leave it to do your own research. I am not one of your interns.

        Ragspierre in reply to forksdad. | October 24, 2015 at 12:05 am

        So, you’re tacitly admitted to putting words in Duh Donald’s mouth that he never said, AND…

        being full of shit about your assertion regarding Bush.


          forksdad in reply to Ragspierre. | October 24, 2015 at 12:32 pm

          Do you have reading comprehension problems? Or are you just deranged regarding Trump. I wrote ‘perhaps’. As that seemed like a reasonable thing to resent from the Bush family.

          I admit to nothing. I wrote what I wrote. I’m not your momma. I don’t have to do your work for you. If you insist on twisting people’s words you will continue to look like an idiot on this subject. Reread for comprehension this time.

          1. Did Bush not call for an end to profiling before 9-11.
          2. Is Trump isn’t beating Bush like a pinata.

          Do lawyers become so habituated to lies that they can lie about everything? Does this bleed over into your personal life?

          What is wrong with you. I wrote what I wrote. I said, “Perhaps Trump blames Bush for proposing to end profiling of Arabs for political purposes before 9-11?”

          Did you not read the “Perhaps”? Did you not see the question mark? Do you just choose to see what you want in a sentence? Or is it simple dishonesty?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 24, 2015 at 12:38 pm

          Shorter folksdad…

          “Yah, I was full of shit. But curse you for exposing me!”

          forksdad in reply to Ragspierre. | October 24, 2015 at 12:51 pm

          Rags dishonesty and derangement are your middle names. You cannot answer the questions. You continue to try putting my words in my mouth. Why?

          What about your position is so weak that you must set up strawmen to attack others? If you cannot address what I actually wrote just drop it. You’re looking like an ass and a dishonest one as well.

          I am perfectly willing to defend what I wrote. Not the strawmen you set up.

          forksdad in reply to Ragspierre. | October 24, 2015 at 12:57 pm

          Let me give you some advice for when you are in a fight verbal or otherwise. If you keep getting hit try a different tack. You keep lying and setting yourself up for an over hand right.

          You chose to walk into a jab. When you chose to lie about what I said rather than address what I actually wrote you are standing with your arms at your side while I keep feeding you over hand rights.

          If you cannot address what I actually wrote you’ll never go anywhere and keep getting a bloody nose.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 24, 2015 at 12:57 pm

          Dude! People CAN read!

          They can see you moving your goal-posts and smearing your bullshit to PRETEND you said what you DID NOT!

          forksdad in reply to Ragspierre. | October 24, 2015 at 1:15 pm

          Some people can read. Others apparently simply assign whatever meaning they want to the words on the page.

          You cannot address what I wrote because it is completely factual.
          1. Bush called for an end to profiling before 9-11 specifically Arab profiling.
          2. Bush is getting beaten like a pinata.

          Which part of my original comment is not true. Take it apart sentence by sentence.

          Do you really have these communication problems when you are face to face with people?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 24, 2015 at 1:33 pm

          See, this is why hearsay is not allowed, and this is also how liars who think they’re being cute use lies by implication…

          You were asked two simple, direct questions in response to this bullshit….

          “Perhaps Trump blames Bush for proposing to end profiling of Arabs for political purposes before 9-11? Certainly that policy of not profiling has lead to dangerous people being allowed into our country.”

          Note the implicit lie. “Perhaps Trump meant you were sexually abused as a child, and that led to you’re being a baby diddler? Certainly, being sexually abused as a child can lead to problems.”

          You FAILED to answer either question challenging your 1) putting words in T-rump’s mouth, and 2) making an unsupported assertion, BUT changed the goal-posts and deflected with all you had. Which was jack-spit.

          forksdad in reply to Ragspierre. | October 24, 2015 at 2:31 pm

          Precisely, this is why hearsay is not allowed. You are not allowed to tell people what I say. I am allowed to say what I say. You still have not shown where anything I said was wrong.

          I acknowledged in the original post and again several posts up thread that it was speculation on my part. Obviously you simply have to squirt ink or put other words in my mouth because I wrote what I wrote and there is no disputing the truth of the facts.

          Do you approve of Bush’s call for an end to Arab profiling? Did you think it was reasonable at the time? Really what is your issue with the truth?

          The facts remain.
          1. Bush said we should end ethnic profiling of Arabs.
          2. Bush is getting his ass beat like a pinata.

          If you have a problem you have it with the facts not me.

          I’m not the guy who said we ought to quit profiling Arabs. I’m not the guy getting his ass handed to him by Trump.

    Alivia in reply to forksdad. | October 23, 2015 at 10:58 pm

    That was Clinton’s doing not Bush’s.

    “As the 9/11 Commission tries to uncover what kept intelligence agencies from preventing September 11, it has overlooked two vital factors: Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton. Gorelick, who has browbeaten the current administration, helped erect the walls between the FBI, CIA and local investigators that made 9/11 inevitable. However, she was merely expanding the policy Bill Clinton established with Presidential Decision Directive 24. What has been underreported is why the policy came about: to thwart investigations into the Chinese funding of Clinton’s re-election campaign, and the favors he bestowed on them in return.”

    “Myth: On August 6, 2001 Bush was briefed by the CIA about possible Al Qaeda attacks inside the US. Bush ordered no special precautions, and spent the rest of August on vacation.

    Fact: Bush Administration Takes Action:

    -The Counter-terrorism Security group (CSG) – which brings together WH officials with officials from all relevant federal agencies – began to meet several times per week, with telephone contact between key officials several times per day.

    -The FBI was conducting active investigations inside the US, and issuing appropriate warnings.”

    “When Clinton was advised to pass a law requiring that driver’s licenses for aliens expire when their visas do (so that a routine traffic stop could trigger the deportation process), the White House rejected the idea on the grounds that it would constitute racial profiling.”

    “The number of foreign visitors and workers at the nation’s defense labs from sensitive countries, including ones sponsoring terrorism, exploded under the Clinton administration, according to ret. Col. Edward McCallum, former head of Energy’s Office of Safeguards and Security.

    Clinton invited terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern countries.

    “Every terrorist country was represented at the labs, either as post-doctoral workers and students assigned there, or as visitors,” said ret. Col. Edward McCallum, former head of Energy’s Office of Safeguards and Security.

    “Iran, Iraq, Syria … you name it, we had them from all of those places.”

    McCallum revealed that, over the last decade, “hundreds” of students from sensitive Middle Eastern countries worked at Energy’s labs, including Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia labs, where America’s nuclear weapons are designed and maintained.

    “And we got hundreds of visits from their intelligence agencies — that we knew about,” he added.

    At Los Alamos, which designed most of the warheads in the U.S. arsenal and stores nuclear materials at its New Mexico facilities, the number of foreign nationals from sensitive countries working at the lab soared to 182 in 1999 from 31 in 1992, internal lab records show.

    Countries the lab classifies as sensitive are: Iran, Iraq, India, China, North Korea, Russia, Taiwan, Pakistan and Syria.

    In 1998 alone, the three major labs, plus Oak Ridge in Tennessee, hosted more than 10,700 foreign visitors and academic assignees, some of whom stayed on site for as long as two years, according to the House Science Committee, which oversees the labs. Those from sensitive countries totaled more than 3,100.

    “They kicked the doors wide open,” McCallum said, despite his protests. “They were encouraging visitation.”

    “When Hazel O’Leary was on her flying carpet trips in the mid-’90s, one of the pitches she made was, ‘Send your scientists. We have technology to share,'” McCallum said.

    Under the Reagan and Bush administrations, Energy required background checks on foreign visitors. But in 1994, O’Leary granted Los Alamos and Sandia exemptions from the rule. As a result, few background checks were conducted at those labs, and the number of foreign visits exploded.

    Los Alamos, for example, had 2,714 visitors in two years from sensitive countries, but only 139 were checked, according to a 1997 congressional report.

    He and other security officials worried that the uncontrolled access to the labs invited not only espionage, but terrorism.

    “Hazel said to me, and this is a quote, ‘Boy, don’t you understand that the Cold War is over, and all these people are our friends now?'” McCallum said. “And we were talking about security against terrorists and espionage in the same conversation.”

    After McCallum told Congress about Energy’s security problems, he was punished by former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. He left the department in 1999.

    “I’ve always felt that if there were an insider at one of the labs who had access to nuclear materials, it would be tough to stop them,” said Troy Wade, former assistant Energy secretary for Defense Programs under the Reagan administration.

    Nuclear materials are kept at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Sandia and Livermore, as well as other labs. Having access to the labs would, of course, make it easier for would-be terrorists to steal such materials.

    It takes less than 50 pounds of weapons-grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium to craft a crude nuclear device.

    “But they don’t have to steal it,” McCallum said. “All they have to do is detonate it right there. It’s a one-way trip for an Islamic student or visitor.””

    The tragic event in Somalia, Blackhawk Down, and Clinton’s actions, which our enemies took note of, including OBL, carried consequences for our national security. OBL in an interview with ABC spoke on it. We looked weak and due to the media’s reporting of the event, this country would never view war in the same light again- the American public didn’t have the stomach for it. The conflicts we have been in since then, have all been impacted by that.

    Clinton states that he had nothing to indict OBL on and so that he could extradite OBL to this country from the Sudan?

    Enter Mary Jo White who Elizabeth Warren is currently chomping at the bit to take down.

    “The inddictment of bin Laden
    After two years of investigation, her office secretly secured the indictment of Osama bin Laden for terrorism conspiracy, two months before the bombing of the American embassies in Africa, in which he was also later indicted.”

    Everything was more important to Clinton than terrorism. Building his legacy, the Lewinsky scandal which resulted in his impeachment for lying under sworn oath, and getting Hillary elected to the Senate. He was more interested in political correctness than being tough on terror.

    “Under Clinton, terrorists used tax-exempt U.S.-based charities to bankroll terror.
    Judicial Watch, which has filed a complaint with IRS Commissioner, Clinton holdover Charles Rossotti, charging that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida network, Hamas and others continue to use tax-exempt U.S.-based charities to bankroll terror, unencumbered by even the hint of an audit.
    Bill Clinton’s IRS pursued his personal enemies with great enthusiasm – auditing Billy Dale, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and dozens more – America’s enemies, it seems, got a free pass from the same agency.

    At least 16 U.S.-based non-profit entities have been linked financially to bin Laden, the legal watchdog group says.

    One such questionable non-profit, the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA), has been directly linked to earlier attacks on U.S. interests by bin Laden.

    “IARA reportedly transferred money to Mercy International, another non-profit Muslim organization that purchased vehicles used by Osama bin Laden to bomb the U.S. embassies in both Kenya and Tanzania on August 8, 1998,” the complaint notes.
    Not only did Rossotti & Co. not investigate, that same year the Clinton State Department showered the IARA with $4.2 million in grants.

    Other non-profits said by Judicial Watch to have ties to Hamas include:

    The United Association for Studies and Research
    Islamic Association for Palestine
    North American Islamic Trust
    The Islamic Relief Association
    Muslim American Society
    The Cultural Society
    the Muslim Arab Youth Association
    The Alaqsa Educational Fund
    Council on American Islamic Relations
    Islamic Society of North America
    Islamic Circle of North America
    American Middle Eastern League for Palestine
    Quaranic Literacy Institute

    Rossotti’s decision to look the other way happens to coincide with a series of generous donations by Muslim non-profits to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign.

    In Boston – the same city where two hijacked planes departed before slamming into the World Trade Center nearly two weeks ago – Mrs. Clinton held a June 13, 2000, fundraiser hosted by the American Muslim Alliance.

    Clinton “clearly understood that her hosts were concerned that the U.S. war on terrorism might be too harsh.”

    In her speech, “Mrs. Clinton vowed to pursue fairness and justice in the issue of secret evidence and the Anti-Terrorism Act,” the AMA website noted.

    At the Boston event, the former first lady accepted a $1,000 contribution from Abdurahman Alamoudi, an official with the American Muslim Council who once vowed to eliminate Israel and had previously boasted, “We are the ones who went to the [Clinton] White House and defended what is called Hamas.”

    When Mrs. Clinton’s campaign reported Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council donation to the FEC, the AMC was camouflaged as the “American Museum Council.”

    Alamoudi had pledged his $1,000 at a fundraiser held a month earlier at the Washington, D.C., mansion of Yasser Arafat crony Hani Masri – a gathering Mrs. Clinton’s campaign went to great lengths to conceal.

    “The event, which sources said raised more than $50,000, was closed to the press, which wouldn’t have known about the event anyway, since it wasn’t listed on Mrs. Clinton’s public schedule,” the Jewish Forward reported at the time.”

    Clinton is still getting a free pass and potentially could be back in the West wing.

    By the way, there were WMDs. But you can’t debate that with a bully and any person who has a selective memory, such as Congress, who signed off on entering Iraq, and politicized the Iraq war, while we had our Armed Forces on the ground. They had the same Intel as Bush and had they requested more, it would have been submitted to them for review. Selwyn Duke has a term to refer to them… truthists. It doesn’t matter if something is the truth, only that it is politically correct.

    “The recent turmoil in Iraq brought on by the rise of the Sunni extremist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has ironically struck a blow to the American Left’s endlessly repeated narrative that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq prior to the war. The State Department and other U.S. government officials have revealed that ISIS now occupies the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex. Al Muthanna was Saddam Hussein’s primary chemical weapons facility, and it is located less than 50 miles from Baghdad.

    The Obama administration claims that the weapons in that facility, which include sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agent VX, manufactured to prosecute the war against Iran in the 1980s, do not pose a threat because they are old, contaminated and hard to move. “We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible to safely move the materials,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.”

    And this is barely scratching the surface.

Henry Hawkins | October 23, 2015 at 4:56 pm

Jean, bear in mind that in the years cited for Trump’s anti-GWBush jihad, he was a registered Democrat (2001-2009). He’s changed party affiliations at least five times according to voting records. He’s a political chameleon.

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 23, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    I prefer “whore”.

    Nothing wrong with changing party affiliation in this day and age. Considering how deranged, ignorant and corrupt the democrats are and how completely corrupt the republicans are, might as well call yourself an independent. But that could change if Trump were elected. Just as how George W. Bush bragged how he ‘changed’ the GOP (destroyed it, actually), Trump might destroy the corrupt hacks running it and make it a party worth supporting again.

    Party affiliation means nothing anymore, except if you proudly claim to be a ‘democrat.’ (An example of one word being worth a thousand images…)

      How ’bout supporting some of the scum of the COllective, which, of course, T-rump has done.

      Calling yourself an independent is no sin. Promoting the election of some of the worst people in the US is.

      “OK, I would use the debt limit,” Trump responded. “I don’t want to say — I want to be unpredictable, because, you know, we need unpredictability. Everything is so predictable with our country.”

      What burned those who voted for Obama was that they thought they were getting one thing but it wasn’t what they bargained for. He ran a platform where he presented himself to be what he wasn’t and had he voiced what he really stood for, he would never have been elected. I want predictable in my candidate. If I can’t predict what my candidate will do, who is to say that I won’t be just like those Obama voters who had one heck of a wake up call.

      If a prospective employer, and that is what the voter/constiuent is, inquires about something, saying that you want to be unpredictable, isn’t going to go over well. It will come off as being evasive. It is one thing to think on your feet but another thing to be unpredictable. Unpredictable could mean that what they decide upon is not what I bargained for or agreed to when I chose them. It may work in business negotiations, and why he is so successful, but until you have earned an employer’s trust, with a proven track record, unpredictable is not part of the bargain.

      I want to know exactly where a candidate stands and down to every last minute detail so that I can make a qualified choice as to who to cast my vote for. If a candidate can’t do that, that is a deal breaker. Talk is cheap.

    forksdad in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 23, 2015 at 9:18 pm

    Trump’s slapping Jeb! around because Jeb is weak and Trump is a dirty fighter. He is willing to get into the mud and kick you in the crotch.

    He’d be doing the same to anyone else in Bush’s position. Why anyone is surprised at this I have no idea.

      Alivia in reply to forksdad. | October 24, 2015 at 3:47 am

      Actually, what Jeb is experiencing is what the progressive left has extended to their adversaries.

      It is being piled onto Jeb but it could apply, and has, to anyone who has had the pleasure of being confronted by the aggressive left. I am no supporter of Jen’s but I have dealt with bully tactics as a means to silence dissent. Who does the progressive left associate with Bush and target for their attack? He hates Bush and calls him evil? Any person who says they haven’t stood in Jeb’s shoes and been attacked over Bush, the usual “I hate Bush/Iraq war rhetoric, isn’t being intellectually honest. If you don’t tow the line for the left, or share some of the views that Trump has voiced, regarding Bush, endorsing Obama, you will get the same treatment. The bullies will come out of the woodwork.

      This isn’t about Jeb. It is about his brother. Bush is the target. It is always about Bush. It never ends.

      And this country is great. It is the greatest nation in the world. We already had one “savior” too many and who wanted to also make this country great. Better known as hope and change.

      betty in reply to forksdad. | October 24, 2015 at 8:29 am

      Trump is a dirty fighter? Perhaps, but I prefer his out in the open dirty fighting to Jeb and his money men’s version – Go find out about their machinations? And answer, why did Saint Jeb say “I might have to lose the primaries, in order to win the general”? Can you figure out what he was planning and had all the confidence he could pull off?

      Donald Trump’s fighting right out in the open sunlight, not sneaking hiring false flag splitter candidates around changing party rules state by state for the express purpose of being able to win the nomination with ‘shock and awe” money.

      Oh, how he must have been rubbing his hands together in anticipation – Oh, how glad I am that Donald Trump came along right in the light of day and stamped the roach.

    ZurichMike in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 23, 2015 at 11:30 pm

    Reagan was a Democrat. Your point?

      Henry Hawkins in reply to ZurichMike. | October 24, 2015 at 9:21 am

      So was I when I first reached age of majority in the 1970s. Trump has changed party affiliations 5 times since 1999. There is zero comparison to Reagan or anyone else who changed once in their more youthful years.

      How anyone could trust that Trump is a Republican, let alone a conservative, is beyond me. Trump is a businessman who studies the market and becomes whatever he believes will sell. He is identical to Obama in this, that great moderate unifier of 2008.

It isn’t “acceptable” in polite society to support Donald Trump, I am told.

America’s bullies – the sneering, “we know better than you” establishment classes – have made many cower in silence rather than proclaim that Trump is a tremendous presidential candidate and has earned their support.

It is a replay of the worst aspects of high school peer-pressure, about what’s OK and what isn’t, based on selfish interests and prejudices.

Well, enough of that. Trump is already changing America for the better – and is encouraging us to boldly stand up for our beliefs about what’s best for our nation and best for our fellow Americans.

So let’s get right to it. Shifting America back on course requires Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. Not only is he the only Republican candidate who could win the general election, but he is the only choice Republican voters should consider (and should consider themselves lucky to have on their side).

In no particular order, here are the top 20 reasons why:

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 23, 2015 at 6:28 pm

    And nothing has changed. Duh Donald is dangerous. Obama dangerous.

    Anyone supporting him in the face of his history and current positions is delusional.

      Rags you ignorant slu*t

      Of course Levin now likes the 2015 Trump and loves Trumps immigration and tax plans.

      Time to get back to the future with your links Ragsy.

        PhillyGuy in reply to Gary Britt. | October 23, 2015 at 10:08 pm

        That’s the second time he’s used a 4 year old blog post when he knows there are more current statements Levin has made about Trump.

          Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | October 24, 2015 at 12:02 am

          It isn’t just a “blog post”.

          It IS an actuality of Levin’s program that anyone can listen to, and they should.

          When you have to lie to support T-rump, that kinda shows how enthralled you are.

          There’s a difference between “voters” and slavish followers.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 23, 2015 at 11:52 pm

        Britt, you lying SOS, name each of the assertions Levin made against T=rump that are untrue.

        Name any that he’s retracted explicitly.

        You can’t. They were true then, and they’re still true.

        T-rump is a Collectivist. As are you.

          Rags you ignorant slu*t. Just admit you are a liar with your 4 year old Levin links. If that old link was still true of what Levin thinks of 2015 Trump you would be able to post 2015 links of Levin saying bad things about Trump.

          A simple google search reveals the magnitude of your lies and deception.

          Mark Levin: Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Is ‘Reaganesque’ – Grabien

          Sep 29, 2015 … Summary. Mark Levin: Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Is ‘Reaganesque’. Subjects … The Mark Levin Show.

          Donald Trump vs. National Review | Red Millennial
          Sep 29, 2015 … Conservative pundits like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh continue to defend Trump

          Mark Levin: Defend People Like Trump Who Are Speaking Out
          Jul 2, 2015 … Conservatives should be defending people such as Donald Trump for speaking the truth rather than

          Rags you just parot crazy demicrat and Glenn Beck bullcrap and lies. Why Rags you are just an ignorant liar.

          Pot meet kettle…..


          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 24, 2015 at 9:30 am

          Why not go to Levin’s actuality on taxes, you stinking liar?

          Levin: “Do I prefer a Flat Tax; YES! Do I prefer a Fair Tax; YES!”

          Of course, the lying T-rump had…in turn…pretended to favor REAL tax reform like those above, before settling on “his” code dicking “plan”. Which is almost the same as Bush’s “plan”. And both leave the IRS intact.

          Levin: “This is where I have a disagreement with Donald Trump. Everybody…pretty much…otta pay something in taxes”…and etc. This, of course, is where REAL conservatives have issues with the NOT T-rump plan, which is NOT real reform at a time when we should militate for real reform. Being a CPA, I can see where you’re a reactionary in defense of your rice bowl.

          Levin also admits that he’s no tax maven, notes that Bush’s tax plan is about 3% different, etc. Since Reagan was WRONG on tax policy, calling T-rump’s plan Reaganesque is not a compliment if you’re actually a conservative (which we know you’re not, lying liar).

          NOT T-rump’s tax plan has been scored by a conservative tax policy outfit. They show that…if it were made law…it would result in even higher deficits that we have now.

          Analysis shows it is NOT a “tax the rich” plan as T-rump lied it was, but would actually leave the rich better off. Couple that with making MORE of America NON-payers for their federal government, you can see where the NOT revenue neutral scoring would have to be.

          IF you were not a dishonest puke.

          That’s Mr. lawyer and CPA to you rags. Also all one needs to know about you is included above where you state Reagan and Reagan’s tax plans weren’t conservative. If Reagan wasn’t conservative enough for you (while at same time you make posts supporting the Bushes and Bush establisment pac Club for Growth), I’ll take the not conservative enough for you Reagan and Donald Trump every time.

          Calling something Reaganesque is not a compliment according to you. Funny democrats have that same opinion. Me I’m no democrat and I’m no Bush establishment global corp loving inconsistent moron with 4 year old links like you.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 24, 2015 at 11:12 am

          But you lying idiot, pretty much ANY thinking conservative has, does, and will critique Reagan forthrightly. And honestly, a concept we all see you have no inkling about.

          Reagan was a great president, but he was not always even a good conservative. Tax policy was one of his disappointments, though he did TRY. He let a lot of his tax policy gains go during his presidency. This is something you’d know if you were even a half-assed CPA, or had a conservative notion in your crap-packed skull. This is WHY we need fundamental reform, not dicking with the code and leaving the code in place to return to some other point of status quo. Conservatives know the 16th Amendment is an affront to the idea of liberty and limited government. Abolishing the income tax is an idea as remote to T-rump as integrity is to you.

          Reagan was a big free trade supporter, like the Club For Growth, you lying moron. But he rather frequently fell short of his own beliefs, when pressured by BIG BUSINESS, and by Congresscritters pushed by BIG LABOR. You and T-rump and Bernie Sanders are already there, being the Collectivists you just ARE.

          Reagan also was convinced that amnesty was a good idea to solve a relatively (to now) tiny problem. But we all know that no amnesty program, anywhere, at any time, has ever achieved its goals. T-rump’s amnesty won’t, either.

          I just LOVE it when you lie like a dog and pretend any conservative trait! THAT’S ALWAYS soooooo cute!

    Alivia in reply to Gary Britt. | October 24, 2015 at 4:23 am

    We have been standing up and to those who have voiced the same rhetoric as Trump did. The elite left who Trump was aligned with from 2001-2008. What Jeb and other candidates for the Republican party have experienced is what conservatives/the right have. I’m still waiting to see Trump unload on the democratic candidates.

      You aren’t payingvattention then. Trump has heen saying Hillary should be in jail. He is ONLY candidate to speak so plainly and forcefully about it.

      The most important point in this election you completely ignore with your worries about past positions and former party affiliations. The continued existence of the USA is at stake in this election because of open borders, amnesty, and too much legal immigration, and the only candidate prom7sing to build a wall, deport illegals, and enforce our laws (plus stop taking middle east muslims) is Donald Trump. Unless and until that changes there is no other candidate to consider and any other considerations about conservative purity are complete folly. The country doesn’t have time for purity when there is only one candidate willing to stand up and protect the country’s continued existence then advocating or voting for any other candidate but Trump is advocating and voting for our own suicide as a country. It really is just that simple.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 24, 2015 at 11:20 am

        Well, IF you’re stupid and deluded enough to discount everything the man’s been his life entire.

        IF you’re stupid and deluded enough to overlook his CURRENT positions, which are admittedly BIG GOVERNMENT, really no different from Obama.

        And I could go on. And on…


It could be that Trump is dropping in the polls in Iowa because of his attacks on W. Most republicans don’t want to hear that W’s presidency is viewed as an abject failure. I still think Trump was in cahoots with Bill Clinton. Why would Trump even want to discuss his run for the presidency with the husband of the front runner of the Democratic Party?

    The Bushes both of them were absolute disasters for the republican party. But you may be right that some republicans remember them with rose colored glasses. The truth however is quite different. Bush 41 was responsible for the complete destruction of the Reagan coalition he inherited with his tax increases, assault weapons ban, and the appointment of a raving liberal to the supreme court. By the time he was through destroying the republican brand the GOP had lost the presidency and numerous state governorships and legislatures. Then Bush 43 before he left office had lost both houses of congress and reversed all the gains in state governments started the road to supersizing government and deficits and had his treasury secretary running around begging for a trillion dollars on tarp. And I haven’t even started talking about his disasters in the middle east.

    The Bush family has twice decimated the GOP with their big government global corporation policies and still these establishment republicans push for another Bush just when tbe gop is recovering from the last Bush disaster.

    Trumps Iowa polls have most likely fallen as a result of the huge amount of club for growth Karl Rove negative adds run against him in Iowa over past month.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 23, 2015 at 11:57 pm

      The Club For Growth stands for two fundamental ideals: small government, and free markets.

      They have no connection to Carl Rove.

      They also have no connection to lying liars like you who are supportive of the same ideas as Sanders, Bernie Boi.

      Conservatives support property rights, unlike Collectivists like T-rump.

        The club for growth stands for open borders global corporations and the Bush GOP establishment. You are either a liar about the facts or just ignorant of same.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 24, 2015 at 8:58 am

          No, you…or someone who has any integrity and a brain…can research the Club for Growth.

          What someone who isn’t a lying liar will find is that they’ve remained a remarkably focused conservative group with but two concentrations: small government and free trade.

          They’ve never taken a position on immigration, foreign policy or anything outside of their mission.

          You and T-rump on the other hand…along with Bernie Sanders…are BIG GOVERNMENT Collectivists who believe in telling Americans who they may trade with, how we may use our property, and how we should live.

          There isn’t a conservative notion in your crap-packed skull, and you’ve admitted that this election isn’t about conservative principles. Which one a very few truthful things you’ve ever said. Along with how you’d vote Deemocrat (just like Mr. Establishment HAS).

      platypus in reply to Gary Britt. | October 24, 2015 at 2:14 am

      Gary, I voted for GW twice. I don’t regret it. All you have to do to understand why is to look at the alternatives.

      Can you imagine Al “hotbreath” Gore as POTUS on 9/11? Can you imagine John “horseface” Kerry dealing with two ongoing wars, one of which was going badly in 2006-07?

      GW was not a great president but he was the only viable choice. We are faced with the same situation again – there is only one viable candidate for POTUS.

        ZurichMike in reply to platypus. | October 24, 2015 at 4:45 am

        Al “hotbreath” Gore. Snort. Giggle. 🙂

        You are correct about the choices and I also flvoted for all the Bushes like a good republican but that doesn’t change the fact that the Bushes were both disasters for the gop. Now we at this time have only one candidate promising to save the country from its current existential crisis from illegal immigration and politucal correctness. That single candidate is Donald Trump. There will be no difference if we elect an open borders Bush or open birders Hillary. There is only one sane choice to preserve tge continued existence of our country. Donald Trump and his wall.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 24, 2015 at 11:24 am

          Annnnnda, THAT’s another stupid, delusion set of lies.

          Ted Cruz is the conservative you lie about T-rump being, and he’s the reformer Mr. Establishment will never be.

          Anonamom in reply to Gary Britt. | October 24, 2015 at 11:25 am

          I completely agree with your assessment of the Bushes’ presidencies (and I voted for them, too.)

          As for the best candidate now? Not so much.

        Ragspierre in reply to platypus. | October 24, 2015 at 1:12 pm

        Candidates need ground operations to go door to door to meet voters. Voters who have personally interacted with a campaign at their doorstep are more likely to vote for a candidate than those who just saw a commercial or got a phone call. In the underlying campaign data, it appears that Donald Trump has yet to get a voter file — a file that shows all the voters in a state, their partisan affiliation, and most importantly, which of those voters ever show up to vote in primaries and caucuses.

        It also turns out that Ted Cruz has the most cash on hand of any Republican, but along with Marco Rubio, has been diligently building ground operations to go knock on doors and meet voters. These fundamentals get ignored, but it does very little good for campaigns to fly around the country giving speeches if they do not have an operation to then capture the identities of their voters, knock on their voters’ doors, and get those voters to the polls on a snowy, winter day in Iowa or New Hampshire next year.

        It is a complex topic for the media, but more than three months before any votes are cast, it is actually more important than what 298 registered voters who might never have voted tell a pollster.
        —via TownHall

        It’s by that traitor Eric Ericson, who gave T-rump’s latest crappy book a glowing review…which was crazy. Because it was T-rump’s latest crappy book. In a long series of crappy books.

      Alivia in reply to Gary Britt. | October 24, 2015 at 4:51 am

      Now I thought that the opposition was the Democrats and not the Bush family.

      According to Trump, Bush is the worst president in history?

      I guess Jimmy Carter gets a free pass.

      “Jimmy Carter’s legacy of war

      In fact, it was during Carter’s single term in office that Iran became an Islamic fundamentalist terror state and that Saddam orchestrated a coup to take power in Iraq, launching the Iraq-Iran War and a megalomaniacal career as a mass murderer. Not that you’ll ever hear that from the newspapers. Let’s hop in the time machine, shall we?

      It’s 1979. The President of the United States — Jimmy Carter — is well on the way to earning a reputation around the globe as a weak leader. Two years earlier, barely five months into his term, Carter had traveled to Notre Dame to deliver a commencement speech. In which he said, startlingly in the middle of the Cold War:

      Being confident of our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear. I’m glad that that’s being changed.

      He went on — at length — about his belief in détente with the Soviet Union (none of that Reaganesque “we win, they lose” business) and his explanations of how he would deal with the world. In practice, that means that during his term he gives back the Panama Canal, opines that he might withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea regardless of the still-ever-present threat from North Korea, and invites Nicaragua’s new Communist Sandinista leaders to the White House, giving them $118 million in aid.

      By 1979, the chickens of Carterism have started coming home to roost. It was quite the momentous year — with ominous consequences.

      AFGHANISTAN: Having made plain that there was nothing to fear from Communism, proclaiming his devotion to détente with the Soviet Union, having signed a controversial strategic arms treaty (SALT II) with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, on Christmas Eve of 1979 Carter was stunned to learn the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan and begun a war with the Mujahideen. It was during this fighting, around 1988, that al Qaeda was founded. The Reagan administration later began to provide aid — stinger missiles among other things — to the Mujahideen. By 1989, the battered Russians withdrew, and the Mujahideen turned its attention to various competing factions. In the infighting, the Taliban rose and took control of the country.

      IRAN: Carter abandoned the Shah, and his UN ambassador went so far as to call the Ayatollah Khomeini “some kind of saint.” The Shah went into exile, but Carter refused to allow him into the U.S. until the Shah became mortally ill. The mullahs demanded that Carter hand the Shah back over. Carter wouldn’t do that, but he wanted him out. Iranian fury at the U.S. rose, and in 1979 hostages were taken at the American embassy in Tehran. (Shortly thereafter the Shah left, ending up in Egypt, where he would die.) Carter was now engulfed in the Iranian hostage crisis — the first in a series of American clashes with the Iranian mullahs that would continue straight through to today. Notably, those who insist that America would be better off if Saddam Hussein had remained in power never get around to making the same claim for the Shah. But in the wake of his overthrow, a country that was once a solid American ally went in the hands of the Ayatollah and radical mullahs and mobs. This has affected the foreign policy of every one of Carter’s successors, resulting in another hostage crisis (in Lebanon), the murder of Marines in their Beirut barracks, the hijacking of TWA flight 847 and the murder of passenger — and U.S. Navy diver — Robert Stethem. All of these involved Hezbollah or the Islamic Jihad or both. And both were financed by the new Islamic masters of Iran.

      Iranian-backed terror increased during the Clinton years. Most notable was the bombing of the Khobar Towers, a U.S. Air Force facility in Saudi Arabia. U.S. intelligence tied the attack to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah. By the Bush 43 era the Iranians had begun a serious push for nuclear weapons, a bid that has come closer to fruition in the Obama era.

      IRAQ: Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq in July of 1979. He had never been a fan of the Shah of Iran, but was even less a fan of the Ayatollah. Shortly after taking power, Saddam quickly established he was a dictator’s dictator. Calling a meeting of hundreds of Ba’ath Party leaders a mere six days after overthrowing his predecessor, the names of men alleged to have committed treason — meaning been disloyal to Saddam — were read out loud. As their names were called, Saddam’s secret police dragged 68 of them out of their seats, with 22 being executed, the rest headed for prison. Having established himself now as the iron fist of Iraq, Saddam immediately began maneuvering to have Iraq replace Iran as a regional power. Why? Saddam understood that the Iranian Revolution had upended the political stability of the Middle East — and that suddenly the Carter administration realized it needed a “counterweight” to its onetime ally Iran. Saddam set his sights on invading Iran. Journalist Kenneth R. Timmerman, a longtime Middle East and Defense correspondent, in his book The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq (written after the first Iraq War in 1991) quotes Carter White House NSC aide Gary Sick as saying of Carter’s strategy with Saddam:

      “[Zbigniew] Brzezinski [Carter’s national security adviser] was letting Saddam assume there was a U.S. green light for his invasion of Iran, because there was no explicit red light. But to say the U.S. planned and plotted it all out in advance is simply not true. Saddam had his own reasons for invading Iran, and they were sufficient.”

      Another Carter NSC aide, Howard Teicher, says that Brzezinski concluded that Iraq was poised to succeed Iran as the principle pillar of stability in the Persian Gulf. Although this notion remained very discreet for nearly a year, by the spring of 1980 Brzezinski and others in government and the media began to suggest publicly that Iraq was the logical successor to Iran as the dominant military power in the Persian Gulf.… Indeed, in April, Brzezinski stated on national television that he saw no fundamental incompatibility of interests between the United States and Iraq.

      With suggestions of encouragement from the Carter administration — now fighting for its political life in the fall presidential campaign and anxious for a resolution to the Iranian hostage crisis — Saddam Hussein launched a massive invasion of Iran in September 1980. The war would go on until August of 1988 — eight years — forcing Reagan to deal with Saddam at the same time he was dealing with Iran’s financial backing of terrorism and the hostage taking of Americans in Lebanon — and more. The numbers of casualties of the Iran-Iraq War are inexact, but they are easily in the hundreds of thousands, with some placing it at one million.

      Why is this relevant now? Astonishingly (or maybe not) there are presumably serious people out there who have swallowed the liberal line — not to mention the Obama line — that “it’s Bush’s fault.”

      Here’s an account in which Kennedy, a co-host of the Fox Business show called “The Independents,” told a stunned Bush UN Ambassador John Bolton: “So you’re telling me a completely destabilized Iraq now is better than what it was in 2002?” Over at CNN, host Chris Cuomo, son of the Carter-supporting Mario, was even worse. Demanded Cuomo of ex-Bush Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “Where is the contrition, you know, if you want to use that word, where is the Bush administration saying we got it wrong?”

      The Bush administration? In 1979 George W. Bush was a recently failed candidate for Congress in Texas and the son of an ex-Republican factotum — George H.W. Bush — the latter who was out of office and nursing what seemed at the time to be a distinctly longshot presidential ambition. In fact, it is Jimmy Carter who set in motion — or stood by watching as it was — much of what ails the Middle East. The Carter legacy of weakness begat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which begat the rise of the Islamic terrorist state of Iran and the winks and nods to the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

      No one summed up this abysmal Carter legacy of war and terror better than the late Christopher Hitchens, who wrote the following in Slate back in May of 2007:

      I once had quite an argument with the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy [the liberal Democrat from Minnesota], who maintained adamantly that it had been right for him to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 for no other reason. “Mr. Carter,’ he said, ‘quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had.”

      Hitchens added:

      In the Carter years, the United States was an international laughingstock. This was not just because of the prevalence of his ghastly kin: the beer-sodden brother Billy, doing deals with Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi, and the grisly matriarch, Miz Lillian. It was not just because of the president’s dire lectures on morality and salvation and his weird encounters with lethal rabbits and UFOs. It was not just because of the risible White House “Bible study” sessions run by Bert Lance and his other open-palmed Elmer Gantry pals from Georgia. It was because, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq — still the source of so many of our woes — the Carter administration could not tell a friend from an enemy. His combination of naïveté and cynicism — from open-mouthed shock at Leonid Brezhnev’s occupation of Afghanistan to underhanded support for Saddam in his unsleeping campaign of megalomania — had terrible consequences that are with us still. It’s hardly an exaggeration to say that every administration since has had to deal with the chaotic legacy of Carter’s mind-
      boggling cowardice and incompetence.”


      “glecting America’s Security Needs

      Underlying the Clinton security failure was the fact that the administration was made up of people who for 25 years had discounted or minimized foreign totalitarian threats, opposed America’s armed presence abroad, and consistently resisted the deployment of America’s military forces to halt Communist expansion. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was himself a veteran of the Sixties “anti-war” movement, which abetted the Communist victories in Vietnam and Cambodia and created the “Vietnam War Syndrome” that made it so difficult afterwards for American presidents to deploy the nation’s military forces.

      Berger had also been a member of “Peace Now,” the leftist movement seeking to pressure the Israeli government to make concessions to Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorists. Clinton’s first National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake, was a protégé of Berger. All three had met as activists in the 1972 McGovern presidential campaign, whose primary issue was opposition to the Vietnam War based on the view that the “arrogance of American power” was responsible for the conflict rather than Communist aggression.

      For nearly a decade before 9/11, the Clinton administration was aware that Americans were increasingly vulnerable to attacks which might involve biological or chemical weapons, or even nuclear devices bought or stolen from broken pieces of the former Soviet Union. This was the insistent message of Republican speeches on the floors of Congress and was reflected in the warnings not only of several government commissions, but also of Clinton’s own Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. In July 1999, for example, Cohen wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, predicting a terrorist attack on the American mainland:

      “In the past year, dozens of threats to use chemical or biological weapons in the United States have turned out to be hoaxes. Someday, one will be real.”

      During its eight years, the Clinton administration hamstrung the government’s intelligence services in the name of civil liberties; shrunk the U.S. military in the name of fiscal responsibility; and prevented the Pentagon from adopting (and funding) a “two-war” strategy, because “the Cold War was over” and, in the White House’s judgment, there was no military threat in the post-Communist world that might make it necessary for the United States to be able to fight wars on two fronts simultaneously.”

      But Bush is the worst president in history. Smh

    ZurichMike in reply to mwsomerset. | October 23, 2015 at 11:33 pm

    Evangelicals and corn farmers addicted to ethanol subsidies rule the quirky beauty contest known as the Iowa caucus, I am told. Reagan did not win the Iowa primary. But President Huckabee and President Santorum did.

    Imagine Bill Clinton seeing Hillary get hit with this email server curveball revelation in March. He decides that this time nothing is going to stop their return to power. Bill Clinton is a political master and he’s watching Bernie gain traction on the far-left, but he needs a far-right tool, to set up his triangulation strategy that he knows will win.

    So, he hears Trump is interested in running as a Republican and Eureka! there’s the gift he needs. So, he calls Trump, after all they’re old golfing buddies and on friendly terms. So, he decides to offer Trump some advice on political consultants and he recommends Carville and Begala as the “best” and Trump always wants the “best’. This isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.

    So, unbeknownst to Trump he hires them, but due to their toxicity among the GOP, they advise him their role needs to be kept top secret. So, just like that Trump thinks he’s bought the “best”, but the Clinton sewer rats are playing Trump and the GOP for fools.

    First, up they suggest the red meat GOP issue – illegal immigration and it resonates with the GOP base – bamm, just like that Hispanics are alienated – a voter block the GOP needs in the general election, next comes the Megyn Kelly flap – there go women, but Trump is igniting the worst elements of the GOP base – the racists, bigots and xenophobes. He also is following the Carville/Begals media formula for controlling the media cycle with the endless repetition of his popularity in the polls, which Trump does – is their trademark – that’s how they got Clinton through impeachment. It reminds me of a military tactic called swarming, but transferred to a media battlefield. No one else can organize and break through.

    After Biden decided not to run – the triangulation strategy in play is obvious – a far-left kook on the left, Trump on the right and Hillary prances up the middle to the White House.

      You could call it Clinton Scorched Earth 2016.

      Barry in reply to mhere. | October 23, 2015 at 11:50 pm

      “This isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.”

      LOL, you’re going to need more tin foil. In addition to the hat, I’d suggest covering the walls in your padded room.

        If something smells in Presidential politics, I learned long ago to look for the Clinton sewer rats lurking about. This race is Clinton triangulation in play and you can tell by Hillary’s confidence now, that Bill has cleared the field for her.

        Trump will assure the GOP race stays in disarray.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Barry. | October 24, 2015 at 9:25 am

        They have wallaper for that now.

        “Your next tinfoil hat will won’t be made of tinfoil. A small company called Conductive Composites out of Utah has developed a flexible material — thin and tough enough for wallpaper or woven fabric — that can keep electronic emissions in and electromagnetic pulses out.”

          There is a term for those electronic emissions that I am not sure has been declassified. However anyone with the right equipment can read anything inside using scanners from outside. An entire building has to be shielded for the benefit.

          However, every single household has virtual transparency to any sophisticated snooper. Every cell phone, computer, even your tv, cable, and video game consoles can be used to snoop. Several authors pointed this out decades ago. The snooping abilities have not grown less nor do we use fewer devices. Sure put up anti NSA wallpaper. Then turn off your cell phone remove cable, computers, etc from your house and watch your ipads, nooks, and kindles.

      betty in reply to mhere. | October 24, 2015 at 9:05 am

      just a few quick changes minhere –

      Bush hires 10+ gop drones to keep all candidates support below 20% (he thought he could get at least 25%, anyone else could have).

      Bush hires Sanders to pull Hillary to the right, and the triangulation strategy in play is obvious – completely disenfranchised republican base stays home rather then vote the destructive globalist Bush family into power again, an off balance Hillary pulled to the far-left, Bush prances up the middle to the White House.

What strikes me most is that anyone who wasn’t on team Obama, team Kerry, or the progressive left, has experienced the vitriol from conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truthers and company. Everything from personal attacks, to rhetoric regarding Israel being responsible for the attack on 9/11 or it being an inside job. Along with there being no WMDs, “Bush lied and people died”, Al Gore coming unhinged,it was all for oil, impeach Bush for an illegal war when there was none, undermining our war efforts, because it was under Bush, while we had military in the ground, and on and on, ad nauseam.. Bully tactics were in no short supply.

Obama being elected the first term, and there was plenty of vitriol leveled at anyone who could see the writing on the wall. Once he was in, it was all over. It ensured that he would be elected for a second term.

Anyone who could endorse him, can thank themselves for where we are today.

I’m not seeking to put Trump on blast, and I don’t know what the answer is, but I could no sooner vote for him than those who were on the war path because they hate Bush. Anyone who who didn’t embrace “the messiah of hope and change, was labeled as a teabagger, right wingnut, etc. Character assassinations being the status quo. After dealing with that for close to a decade, starting with the hanging chad fiasco, “Bush stole the election”, it leaves an indelible impression. To walk into the voting booth and vote for one of those people? No. It having nothing to do with being an establishment republican/conservative but being intellectually honest with myself.

Anyone who would endorse Pelosi? I remember full and well her actions regarding the Armenian genocide when we had troops in Iraq. Any person who has such little regard for the consequences which would result, for no other reason than to undermine Bush, is dangerous.

Granted that I very well may be wrong but the way that I see it, is that what happened in 2008 has flip flipped.

Concerning is Trump stating that he wants to be unpredictable, because America is tired of predictable, when questioned on certain issues or what have you. Predictable is good because if you can’t predict what a candidate will do, there will be problems. We don’t need anymore surprises but a candidate who is predictable for all the right reasons and that aligns with our core values. IMO, that is.

    platypus in reply to Alivia. | October 24, 2015 at 9:27 am

    I hope you realize that you are misunderstanding Trump’s response using the word ‘unpredictable’. He was referring to foreign policy of the US, not to candidates for POTUS. He was obliquely (IMO) describing the utter stupidity of setting a withdrawal date from the battlefield, among other idiotic revelations provided by the Traitor-in-chief.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Alivia. | October 24, 2015 at 9:28 am

    All it means is that Trump studied the 2008 Obama campaign and wants to be that tabla rasa (‘blank slate’ for Trump supporters) upon which voters can impress whatever they hope and wish Trump to be.

      Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 24, 2015 at 9:37 am

      Plus, he’s like a Red Chinese menu…

      anyone can find a position he’s taken on an issue they might like, because he’s a political whore who will assume any position at least once. Think of him as a hooker with his own copy of the Kama Sutra.

These are some notes I took from the 2011 Mark Levin show where he guts Duh Donald like a trout.

You can check them against the show. Tell us which ones Levin has lied about.

What was he [T-rump] doing while you rallied. Where did his money go. Not to the TEA party.

Weiner donor. Schumer donor

Hellary Clinton donor.

Crist donor. Twice

Harry Reid donor

What did he get in return?, because that’s a crime.

This is Mr. TEA Party?

Jan 2000 MUST have universal health care.

What kind of judgment is this?

Loves Pelosi. Very imprssive person!

Impeach Booooooosh

Does this seem rational to you?

He’s [Boooooooooooooooosh] been so bad a Dem candidate has yuuuuugh advantage. Booooosh worst ever!

Boooooooosh EVIL!

Obama has a chance to go down as great…not on a bull-run like Booooosh who does whatever he wants.

Obama has done an AMAZING job.

Now Obama is the worst! Prior to that is was Carter.

Slip and slide (Levin knows he’s not the real deal).

Trump calls for “concesus” budget. Trump is sick.

You better think this through. He’s entertaining. I’ll call him Mr. Chump.

I will be proven correct. The evidence is in front of you.

I don’t have time for circus acts. I won’t get in the ring with the clowns.

What’s changed? What was NOT true?



Never thought I’d Say…
Donald Trump is a Giant Among Gop front runners‼️
12:27 PM – 23 Oct 2015

744 744 Retweets


There you go….

New CBS/YouGov polls have Trump and Carson tied in Iowa at 27% each. Also has Trump up Yuuuge in SC, NH. One thing that strikes me in this poll are: 1) Trump is in 30s to low 40s and 2) Trump plus carson are over 50% and 60%. Add in Cruz and the outsider candidates are 60% to 70% of total primary voters. Will be interesting to see if this polls results are supported by other polls in November.

The debate coming up this week could shake things up at least temporarily. Trump and Carson both need to do well. I don’t think it will matter if any other candidate does well or not if Trump and Carson both do well. Trump will be under attack by the cnbc people of course.

    Google this: Rubio to replace Jeb as the anointed one then run Carson off and acquire Carson’s Supporters. Do the math but there is that illegal alien/wall thingy the GOP will have to face as the liberals they are.

I’m not so sure that GOP plan will work.

Carson Supporters have a lot more in common with Trump Supporters than Establishment GOP & Rubio and his Supporters.