Thread: Can Trump be stopped?

Originally Posted by Judy

MW wrote:



His article.

His article is a push for Marco Rubio.



As far as I'm concerned, just my opinion only of course, Chris Wallace's statement 3 days ago following his interview with Trump was far more a friend to our cause than this article Pat Buchanan wrote 1 day ago raising the question of whose friend is Pat, really?



http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...-states-video/

Articles that provide any type of encouragement, hope, prayers, guide, let alone an appraised road map to pro-amnesty competition in the race for President by Pat Buchanan or any other Republican is a recipe for their own irrelevancy.

Pat's positions on immigration and trade have not changed. Your perception of the article is, like you said, only opinion. My perception is different than yours. Like I said, I think the article was more positive, not negative, toward Trump. Maybe you're just a little sensitive to anything that's not gushing all over the place for Trump. Could that possibly be true? Just a thought.

I believe Romney would actually have been a good leader back in 2008. One thing for certain in politics is uncertainty; you can't tell what they will do just from what they say. Romney would have come under good influences. But----of course neo- conservatives had to get into the typical infighting and character attacks, so the religious right more or less had a fit with Romney, 'cuz of his Mormonism.

So let's not repeat that same fatal error. In other words if you think Trump can continue to climb in popularity wouldn't he be a good bet? Just think of what the Democratic alternative would be, and the pain we would have been spared if Obama had lost in 2008.

Originally Posted by MW

Pat's positions on immigration and trade have not changed. Your perception of the article is, like you said, only opinion. My perception is different than yours. Like I said, I think the article was more positive, not negative, toward Trump. Maybe you're just a little sensitive to anything that's not gushing all over the place for Trump. Could that possibly be true? Just a thought.

Oh yes, I am absolutely gushing all over the place for Trump. And, quite frankly, anyone who isn't has a problem, because there hasn't been a Presidential candidate in our life-time as voters who is more willing, committed and capable of fixing both the immigration and trade issues that are destroying this country than Donald Trump. Yes, I realize there are those who envy him, who resent his wealth, who are jealous of his success, and can't stand the thought of adding President of the United States to his repertoire. And yes, that group includes quite a few Republicans who would throw away the platform to stop him.

There were some positive elements in the article. But when the purpose of the article is not to advance Trump but to show a roadmap of how to stop him, that is not a positive article, that is an article that should not have been written.

Our problems don't fix themselves under the current set of players. Our problems won't fix themselves under any candidates positions besides Trump's. So writing tongue-in-cheek articles to give out hope, prayers or a road map to drag this process out and keep these other worthless wannabes in the race is not only negative against Trump, it's negative against our country.

When money and time are wasted on a process to still try to advance or elect people like Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, Rick Santorum, or even Ben Carson in my book, who are not going to stop illegal immigration, who are not going to deport illegal aliens, who are not going to fix the free trade inequities, either because they don't want to in most cases or even if they might want to like Rick Santorum, they don't have the skill set to do it, they are contributing to the continued demise of our country.

Republicans have so villainized Donald Trump in their coy little ways that Democrats have no problem at all defeating the Sanctuary Cities bill in the Senate. They feel no threat at all from the Republicans in 2016. They believe the country still supports illegal immigration and illegal aliens killing Americans unimpeded. Why wouldn't they? There is no strong message from anyone except Donald Trump to do otherwise. They're still in the same frame of mind as Republican Establishment. Why wouldn't they be? No one but Donald Trump is calling them out and if they don't think Trump is going to be President and cloud up and rain all over their butts, then why shouldn't they continue on with their cozy little deals with the drug cartels and protect them in sanctuary cities? Sure, there's a bill now but giggle giggle, Republicans are going to put Paul Ryan in as Speaker so defeat it now, and this will be the last time they have to worry about THAT.

It's early in the primary process, but this mess of antagonists with no message, no plan and no skill-set to solve our problems are just invigorating the opposition which was the purpose of Pat's article. I don't think he achieved it, but that was what he was trying to do, that's why he wrote the article and titled it "Can Trump Be Stopped", to encourage the opposition, instead of help defeat it.

Otherwise, he would have written an article titled "Can Trump Win It All", and addressed the many reasons why he should. Instead he recommended putting it all behind Marco Rubio to stop Trump.

I mean, MW, I'm not the only one who sees this. I'm just the one who articulated it. Look at Captainron's post. He got it. He just chose to laugh it off as the ridiculous article it is. I chose to point a finger and call it shameful.

And I doubt we are the only two who drew these conclusions from the article.

I think Trump is a guy who once gets pointed in a certain direction is not going to be stopped. Either that or he is the biggest hoax of our time.