Anyone else want Donald Trump for Prez?

by Dr. Ed Berry

Dick Morris provides lots of good information on politics. As of today, Morris feels Republicans will nominate one of these five candidates.

They are establishment candidate Jeb Bush, “Tea Party” candidates Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, and Ted Cruz, … and the wild-card candidate Donald Trump.

Morris says the establishment candidate no longer has a financial monopoly. The prevailing Tea Party candidate will have billionaire backing. And Donald Trump is worth $9 billion.

Recall my description of the four factions of the Republican Party. Republican faction demographics suggest Jeb Bush will beat the Tea Party candidate. So it’s Jeb Bush unless …

Along comes Donald Trump. 

He’s serious this time. He will run as a Republican. He won’t go third party. He is a household name. He can talk. He has money.

Donald “Make America Great Again” Trump fits the image Republicans and maybe some Democrats want: bring business, jobs, and power back to America.

Trump knows business. He knows money. He knows the players who can help make America great again. He knows the international scene. And he won’t bow to any international leader.

Are you tired of the same old politician candidates?

Do you want a president with the “killer instinct” necessary to make America great again?

Do you want a president who will be nobody’s puppet?

Do you want a president who’s not afraid to say “You’re fired”?

Then Donald’s your man.

Where does Donald Trump fit into the four Republican factions?

You already know, I am a Very Conservative but Seculars Republican. Michael Savage fits this faction. Savage supports Trump. I support Trump. But my faction is only 10 percent of the Republican Party. So …

Will the Somewhat Conservatives (40%) and the Moderates to Liberals (30%) Republicans support Donald Trump over Jeb Bush?

That’s the key to the Republican nomination. If we knew the answer to that question, we would know the Republican nominee.

What’s your answer?

Here’s your chance to add your view in a comment. What Republican faction you represent and who do you like?

6 thoughts on “Anyone else want Donald Trump for Prez?”

  1. If Trump can rise to the top and get the nomination, I can certainly support him. When our very first leader, G. Washington, established the 2-term custom for [p]residents, those who were elected to office were pretty much ordinary citizens who held "day jobs" but sometimes served in public office for a time, then went back to their customary occupations. By the time the Great Socialist, FDR, broke the 2-term mold (may he rest uneasily), the concept of "professional politician" had been pretty firmly established, and we've been burdened ever since by a caste of elites who think they know how to run the nation but keep themselves pretty much confined "inside the beltway" where they grow ever more out of touch with the people they are elected to serve. They have turned the concept of "serving" in public office on its head to mean they get the profits and benefits.

    As a celeb and "personality," there are things about Trump that annoy me, but there's no doubt he knows business, he understands economics (and such things as payroll, profit and loss, and the effect of minimum wages on business operation). If he is allowed to get the nomination, I will support him.

    If there are no "invisible hands" pulling strings behind the scene, I'm inclined to think that most of the people don't want another Bush. I surely hope so. Jeb would be the worst of the 3 Bushes, and as I've said for nearly 8 years, "We don't need no stinkin' dynasties."

    Huckabee has always been a turn-off for me — not sure why, but I don't really like the man. I could support Scott Walker if he were nominated, but his name has been out there for some time. Trump has been and will continue to be ridiculed and denigrated by the lapdog media, but he's just aggressive and brash enough to fight that off.

    Cruz is losing my respect. In most ways he's a good guy, but he graduated Magna cum Laude from "Hahvahd," which would make one think he understands the law. Clearly, however, he does not understand "natural born Citizen." The word "Citizen" appears 11 times in the Constitution. Only ONCE is it modified by any kind of adjective, and this is the clause in Article II defining the qualifications to be [p]resident. He must surely understand that the modifying adjective restricts the Citizens eligible to run for the office to something more limiting than the term "Citizen" standing alone. All he has is a tenuous link through his mother's citizenship. Of the now 3 "anchor baby" "candidates" (with Bobby Jindal, whom I really like, set to announce as of this morning to my great disappointment), Cruz has the very least claim on eligibility.

    Suppose you have a parking lot full of 400 cars. Suppose that 175 of them are red. Suppose you have a rule that only red cars are allowed in-and-out parking on the same ticket. Clearly, you cannot have someone come along in a blue car and try to get the same privilege. We have the same kind of limit on who is eligible to run for the top two offices. (The VP must meet the same qualifications as the [p]rez, per the last sentence of Amendment 12.) It is patently clear that the Founders intended some limit upon the candidates who would run for the highest office.

    If the Constitution were written today, it would most likely contain a section of "definitions," and "natural born Citizen" would appear on that list of terms, but it doesn't. Therefore, we must look to the understanding of the Founders at the time the document was written. Because of the widespread customs of royal houses in Europe and elsewhere abroad, the concept of how citizenship was passed was understood by the Founders better than it is by citizens today — most of whom went to public schools where they were lucky if they read the Constitution even once, let alone studied the doctrines that support it. The Founders understood citizenship to travel through the FATHER. We've heard Cruz promise to renounce the Canadian citizenship he acquired by being born there (which he has done), but have we ever heard him propose to renounce Cuban citizenship? NO! Yet he has a stronger claim to Cuban citizenship than to US! At one time I thought maybe Cruz would make a good attorney general, but if he can't understand the ramifications of law with respect to his own citizenship, I'm not sure I want him as an AG.

    The understanding of our Founders — and of our legislators up to the end of the Civil War — was that a NBC had "parentS (plural, that means both) who owe no allegiance to any foreign power" (per statement in 1866 by Republican Rep. John Bingham, credited as a major architect of the 14th Amendment). Since Rafael Cruz did not become naturalized until 2005 (I think, or maybe 2009), Ted can NOT be "natural born" of two citizen parents.

    Nor does his renunciation of Canadian citizenship have any effect. The modifier is "natural BORN," which means it has to be in effect on the date of birth of the person making a claim. Ted cannot, by filing a piece of paper and taking an oath in 2014, change what he was 40-some years ago!

    We already have an ineligible occupant in the White House with almost identical circumstances to Cruz. Some people are saying, "Well, if Obama got away with it, why not Cruz?" Because two wrongs don't make a right, that's why. If we don't put a stop to the gradual erosion of our Constitution by any person or group with a little clout who wants to sidestep one or more of its mandates, soon we will have no Constitution, and that means either dictatorship (to which we are too close for comfort today) or anarchy. Neither one bodes well for this once-great nation!

    Now I'm far from the only person who thinks this way. There are many whose loyalty will be to the Constitution first and party or personality after. If we all remain loyal to our founding documents, we will NOT support Cruz, Rubio or Jindal, all of whom are best described as "anchor babies." In every case, their non-citizen parents were naturalized considerably after the sons were born. So if any of them is nominated, we won't even have a "lesser of evils" choice; we'll be forced to vote third party or stay home — and thus guarantee yet another loss for the Republicans. Clearly, then, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING CRUZ.

    Ergo, if Dick Morris' prognostications are accurate, my choice comes down to either Walker or Trump. As stated at the beginning, Trump can be brash and something of a blowhard, but I'd much rather have him hold the office than another Bush traitor or someone who is legally not eligible to run.

  2. I'm in your camp! I want someone who will not kow tow to the donors. A person who speaks his mind, and sticks to it. His entry speech was fresh air for this country.

  3. If you look up publicintegrity.org and other searches, you will learn who The Donald is and who bails him out after several bankruptcies. He outed the birther issue to get it out of the way well before fellow puppet for the monied elites grabbed a 2nd term. Now, with the Obamatrade /International sovereign rights grab, we will never get a non-Corptacracy/Kleptacracy guy in there. Who started the international commission in 1973?

    The prez who was shot in Dallas, his last speech is key. Listen to it and you will know the problem is overwhelming. Presidents are chosen, period.

  4. Zinke supported Obama on that trade deal, that sells America down the road. Why trust the president on trade, when you can't trust him for much else?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.