Trump says he’d probably run as independent if he doesn’t win Republican nomination

posted at 9:30 am on April 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Gee, this seems so …. familiar:

Donald Trump will “probably” run as an independent candidate for U.S. President in 2012 if he does not receive the Republican party’s nomination, he told the Wall Street Journal in a video interview on Monday. …

“I am very conservative,” said Mr. Trump. “The concern is if I don’t win [the GOP primary] will I run as an independent, and I think the answer is probably yes.” Mr. Trump said he thought he “could possibly win as an independent,” adding, “I’m not doing it for any other reason. I like winning.”

As for foreign policy, Mr. Trump said he is “only interested in Libya if we take the oil,” and that if he were President, “I would not leave Iraq and let Iran take over the oil.” He remains sharply critical of the Chinese, asserting that as President, “I would tell China that you’re either going to shape up, or I’m going to tax you at 25% for all the products you send into this country.”

The only difference between Trump and H. Ross Perot seems to be that Perot was a better businessman. About four minutes into the interview, Kelly Evans hits Trump on his flirtations with bankruptcy over the years. Trump insists that he never filed for bankruptcy, which is true in terms of his personal finances, although Trump came close enough to it.  His businesses were another matter.  Trump’s Taj Mahal casino had to go through bankruptcy, which cost Trump half of the casino.  The Trump Plaza Hotel next went through bankruptcy, which caused him to lose 49% of the hotel and resign from its management.  Two years ago, Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for Chapter 11, and in 2008 his Trump International Tower in Chicago defaulted on a $40 million loan.  In response, Trump blamed the global economic collapse and tried to have it declared an Act of God to relieve himself of responsibility for the default.

That’s not exactly a great track record for a chief executive.  It’s worth noting that his own investors have booted him from management at these holdings after his risk-taking and failures.

Otherwise, this is a second coming of Perot.  Trump has the money (at least for now) to mount a vanity campaign as a third-party alternative to the two major-party nominees.  This would end up splitting the anti-Obama vote and set the President up for an easy re-election through a popular-vote plurality that would translate into an overwhelming Electoral College majority.  Liberals are not going to flock to Trump’s side for any reason, which means whatever Trump draws will come directly from those who were already inclined to vote against Obama.  It would be a nightmare scenario for Republicans in this cycle, a sort of Charlie Crist on steroids and junk bonds but with a viable Democratic opponent in the mix.

The GOP should nip this in the bud now.  Can we agree that the starting position for anyone seeking the Republican nomination is that they will support the outcome of the primaries?

Update: Aaron Worthing says it’s all about the combover.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Who’s up for another four years of BHO?

CliffHanger on April 12, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Lots of people here, apparently.

Good Lt on April 12, 2011 at 1:59 PM

And I rarely if ever hear a substantial or documented critique of her policies or performance. It is always personal.

rrpjr on April 12, 2011 at 1:57 PM

It is only personal for you. I like her, personally. I hope she finds a way to get the experience she needs to be President one day.

Reagan wasn’t ready to be President at her age and experience either. She is young.

petunia on April 12, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I don’t understand the Chinese currency issue at all and they never explain in the news exactly what the Chinese do with their currency so a lay person can understand.

karenhasfreedom on April 12, 2011 at 1:04 PM

If you want to understand this issue, go to EconTalk.org and find a podcast on the issue. There is one with Don Brodeaux.

Here is how I understand it. Every country that prints it own money has to make a critical decision about how much money to print. It is not an easy issue. At one point, countries had adopted the “gold standard” so that the value of gold would determine the issue. If a country printed too much money without increasing its supply of gold, there would be a run on the currency, which would result in high inflation and other negative issues. So, countries were forced to keep its money supply in line with its gold supply, or face these difficult issues.

But there were some major drawbacks to the gold system, including, for instance, the inability to expand the money supply without additional discoveries of gold. And there is some strong evidence that the gold standard was one of the causes of the great depression because it chocked off the supply of money at a time when the money supply needed to expand. Consequently, countries like the United States went off the gold standard and, in general, have a central bank make the decision about on how much money to print based on other various factors. This determination on money supply is one of the major functions of the U.S. Federal Reserve.

For China, they have decided that they will determine how much of its own currency to print by pegging its currency to our currency at a set rate. This means that they have, in effect, decided to let the U.S. Federal Reserve determine how much money it will print. If the Federal Reserve increases the money supply, so will China. If the Federal Reserve decreases the money supply, so will China. For China, it was decided that pegging its money supply to the dollar would provide stability to its currency as it emerged from third world status in the 1980s and 1990s. China’s decision to peg its fate to the dollar is why it has been making so much noise about moving away from the dollar. That is to say, China no longer feels that the Federal Reserve provides the monetary stability it did in the 1980s and 1990s. And this is the real concern about China moving away from the dollar. It may signal the downfall of the dollar, which would be very bad for the United States standing in the world. Indeed, once Great Britain lost its status as the reserve currency for the world, it lost its place in the world as the dominate leader. If the U.S. losses it status as the reserve currency, that may also be our fate…

I hope this helps. I am not an expert and I am sure that it is more complicated than this, but this is my understanding.

RedSoxNation on April 12, 2011 at 2:02 PM

The elitism goes both ways. She does want to run as a Republican so it seems that making friends with fellow Republicans would be a good idea. It seems everyone is an enemy and no one is a friend from your point of view.

petunia on April 12, 2011 at 1:26 PM

She has plenty of GOP friends: Bachmann, Pence, DeMint…

Just because she doesn’t kiss the ass of the Boehners and Grahamnestys of the world doesn’t mean she’s alienating the GOP.

fossten on April 12, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Okay, fun’s over. Enough of The Donald.

SukieTawdry on April 12, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Lots of people here, apparently.

Good Lt on April 12, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Well it’s their way or the highway. So highway it will be I suppose, since it sure as heck won’t be their way.

jarodea on April 12, 2011 at 2:03 PM

She didn’t have the loyalty of those in her own party and in the other party. Making enemies of people in your own party is bad leadership.

Palin was beaten by her opponents in the end.

Politics is a tough tough game. I don’t see evidence that she can play it well.

So regardless of her stand on issues, no matter how well they are expressed, if you don’t political skill, leadership skill, in the end, the other side wins.

I don’t see that as a small thing. National Democrats are far more ruthless that what she faced inside Alaska.

petunia on April 12, 2011 at 1:59 PM

That’s because she was busting up the GOP good ole boy network. The same network that help murky win in hopes of bring back the good old cronyism days of yore.

AH_C on April 12, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Neither of them would appeal to Southern voters.

kingsjester on April 12, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Didn’t realize that (a) you have the pulse of all southern voters and (b) that southern pick is a must for the GOP at large

Trump/Ventura 2012 “the hair and the body”

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Democrats have a very important quality that is completely lacking within the GOP . . . unity of effort. They get behind their pick and they push like hell while the Republicans whine, cry, chase their tails and trash their own.

rplat on April 12, 2011 at 2:14 PM

It is only personal for you.
petunia on April 12, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Politics is always personal to some extent. You could not possibly make such an exclusionary statement without, I suspect, being somewhat afraid of your own personal emotions and unwillingness to admit them.

rrpjr on April 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM

That’s because she was busting up the GOP good ole boy network. The same network that help murky win in hopes of bring back the good old cronyism days of yore.

AH_C on April 12, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Murkowski won – and Her endorsed pick lost. Seems to me she is not very good at breaking up anything other than a commitment to those who elected her as governor…

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Act

ually she resigned after 2.5 calendar years and three legislative sessions. So that’s not a fact.

alwaysfiredup on April 12, 2011 at 1:38 PM

I stand corrected…

2.5 years, then.

You’d consider voting for her but she’s not qualified and it frightens you that she thinks she is?

You are not being internally consistent.

alwaysfiredup on April 12, 2011 at 1:49 PM

That is what it means to have not made up my mind.

Every single candidate has flaws. Everyone of them. I will choose one in the end. At that point I will have hashed through what I think their faults are–weighing the differences.

If there were a perfect candidate I would certainly like to get on board with them right away! But as it is–I have to choose someone imperfect.

I value somethings more strongly, you may value others.

Winning. That is the most important, that makes me a squish, and probably a RINO, and what ever else you name callers have… but that is the truth.

I don’t dislike any of these people! I think any one of them would do better than Obama!

I am not really in hurry to choose either. Let’s see how the next few months go.

petunia on April 12, 2011 at 2:21 PM

RedSoxNation on April 12, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Not bad, got the gold standard mostly correct. It’s also likely that the gold standard is simply not possible in a fully represented democracy, due to it forcing economic pain on the workers (see Great Depression) and since most countries went off it soon after universal suffrage.

As for China, I didn’t read back in the comments so I’m not sure what the currency issue is. That being said, the major problem was/is China keeping it’s currency to weak which traded decreased jobs in the US but increased wealth in the US. That was fine when China was 1/12 the size of the US and we had several bubbles propping up jobs here. That’s not so fine now that China is 40% our size and we’re out of bubbles. Whatever benefits it may have had in the short-term it has grossly unbalanced the global economic equilibrium. A similar imbalance occurred between the US/Japan and Europe in the 1910′s and 20′s (with us playing the role of China today).

When it comes to the issue of reserve currency status, people will trade in whatever currency they want to. The dollar has a lot of advantages but also has disadvantages which are being driven to the fore at the moment. The main reason the dollar will remain at least a quasi-reserve currency is who will replace it? The Euro is falling apart, the Yen, yeah, the Yuan? You don’t place you’re economic well-being in China’s hands unless you don’t have a choice.

Some claim the reserve status of the dollar is some ueberimperialist power of the US (despite it being voluntary) that benefits us greatly. It has benefits sure, but also costs. They claim being able to print money is a benefit, really? That can be done, as is being done in Japan, Britain, China, and Europe without reserve status anyways. It also exposes us to external crises, there’s a reason most of the money the Fed gave out to banks in 2008 went overseas, thats where most of the dollars are. According to the Bank of International Settlement (iirc), the 2008 financial crisis was caused by a shortage of dollars due to Euro banks overlending ni the 3rd world and then panic running on dollars in the US financial system which collapsed the subprime market.

Lastly, Britain didn’t lose her international position because she lost reserve currency status, it was the other way around. Britain had represented something like 15-20% of the global economy when the pound became reserve currency, by 1930 she was more like 5-8%. The pound’s reserve status was a latent remainder of that earlier period that was no longer justified. The US has represented 20-25% of the global economy since 1950 and nothing seems likely to change that.

Well anyhow, back to the work I’ve been avoiding.

jarodea on April 12, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Murkowski won – and Her endorsed pick lost. Seems to me she is not very good at breaking up anything other than a commitment to those who elected her as governor…

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Thanks for re-inforcing my point. Sarah was breaking up the old-time GOP and they in turn backed Murkey, ‘scion’ of the establishment elites.

AH_C on April 12, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Thanks for re-inforcing my point. Sarah was breaking up the old-time GOP and they in turn backed Murkey, ‘scion’ of the establishment elites.

AH_C on April 12, 2011 at 2:22 PM

I didn’t reinforce anything. She failed with Miller and OD. You call them establishment elites – I tend to think of them as the adults in the room…

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Murkowski won – and Her endorsed pick lost. Seems to me she is not very good at breaking up anything other than a commitment to those who elected her as governor…

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:18 PM

And her endorsed picks in most other states for just about everything won. Your snide remarks about her troubled governorship certainly seem to ignore the exploitation of a quite broken legal system in Alaska state politics.

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Politics is always personal to some extent. You could not possibly make such an exclusionary statement without, I suspect, being somewhat afraid of your own personal emotions and unwillingness to admit them.

rrpjr on April 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM

That is likely true.

I am trying to keep emotional distance. It is too early too get committed to someone who may fizzle.

I really don’t know enough yet.

petunia on April 12, 2011 at 2:28 PM

You call them establishment elites – I tend to think of them as the adults in the room…

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:24 PM

The adults in the room…that vote left more times than right.

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM

And just what region of the country do you live in, Skippy? Next Door to Drywall on the frozen tundra of Canada?

kingsjester on April 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Your snide remarks about her troubled governorship certainly seem to ignore the exploitation of a quite broken legal system in Alaska state politics.

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 2:28 PM

That is the only reason she surives politically at all.

Fife Symington went to cooking school.

petunia on April 12, 2011 at 2:37 PM

I thought this thread was devoted to Donald Trump. Please stick to the topic. Enough about Sarah Palin.

technopeasant on April 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM

And her endorsed picks in most other states for just about everything won. MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 2:28 PM

50% is a long way from just about everything…

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/03/5402157-how-palins-endorsement-fared

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Trump is the man now. Get used to it.

Long live the Donald. Down with Obama!

Palin is old news. A new broom sweeps clean. His name is Trump.

technopeasant on April 12, 2011 at 2:47 PM

50% is a long way from just about everything…

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM

6/11 = 50%? Now that’s some fuzzy math. And how about candidates for governor, hmmm? And how about the recent Supreme Court election here in Wisconsin, where she was just about the only major political figure to endorse Prosser, up against tremendous odds?

Really, Bradky. I know you pride yourself on being the contrarian, which I can admire and respect, but come on. Polish up.

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM

It’s a long way ahead of Obama in 2010.

I am grateful for all the time and effort Sarah Palin put into the 2010 election cycle.

She had a bigger impact than any of these other people in the field did.

We are all better off thanks in large part to what she decided to do.

I don’t think she is done yet, either.

Brian1972 on April 12, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Oh Madcon always looking for exact figures :) Okay 59 picks with 32 wins by that site’s layout. I believe that works out to 54% — still a long way from just about everything. But if you are keeping a running tally on every endorsement she has to date please share.

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Oh Madcon always looking for exact figures :)

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Um…yeah. It’s called accuracy. I imagine when you’re using MSNBC as your source, you’d be unfamiliar with the concept.

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Um…yeah. It’s called accuracy. I imagine when you’re using MSNBC as your source, you’d be unfamiliar with the concept.

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM

That’s what I thought too.

For analysis of Sarah Palin’s success or lack thereof, by all means let’s go straight to Chrissy Matthews and Norah O’Donnell. Right.

Brian1972 on April 12, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Best scenario : NYC secedes, not just from the State of New York, but from the United States as well. Donald Trump and Mike Bloomberg face off against each other in first election to become Lord High King of the World.

Bonus: we get rid of the U.N., too …

RedPepper on April 12, 2011 at 3:07 PM

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM

I await your more authorative source of correct stats.

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 3:09 PM

I didn’t reinforce anything. She failed with Miller and OD. You call them establishment elites – I tend to think of them as the adults in the room…

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Right. The royal family of Mukowsky and Stevens which ran Alaska for most of its existence with the occasional turn by another Donk dynasty.

Against the odds, SP broke thru and insiders on both sides of the aisle started getting indicted and big oil being asked to give up a bigger chunk of the take. You mean those adults? OK… I’d be upset at those interlopers as well if I was one of those insiders… Tell us, did she yank a pork barrel or two from you?

We’ll see how Alaska rolls in the next go around.

AH_C on April 12, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Try here. It’s not perfect but at least it’s sourced. Her win/loss record is 34-20 for candidates making it to the general election. That’s way better than 50%. She made 64 endorsements (most in the primary but some only in the general) and 10 of her primary picks didn’t win their primaries.

alwaysfiredup on April 12, 2011 at 3:19 PM

I await your more authorative source of correct stats.

Bradky on April 12, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Here you go. I know the Washington Post isn’t known quite as much for calling candidates they don’t like every name they can think of, but it should suffice. I don’t think 33/53=50%, do you?

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 3:19 PM

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Heh. Google is our friend apparently. They do still list one election as being undecided when in fact Mark Dayton beat Tom Emmer.

alwaysfiredup on April 12, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Her win/loss record is 34-20 33-21 for candidates making it to the general election.

alwaysfiredup on April 12, 2011 at 3:19 PM

fifm.

alwaysfiredup on April 12, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Come on Donald you are smarter than that.

Wade on April 12, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Democrats have a very important quality that is completely lacking within the GOP . . . unity of effort. They get behind their pick and they push like hell while the Republicans whine, cry, chase their tails and trash their own.

rplat on April 12, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I’ve noticed that.

Alana on April 12, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Come on Donald you are smarter than that.

Wade on April 12, 2011 at 3:57 PM

No, not really. Or his agenda is not what he claims it is.

I find it interesting those who complain about celebrity politicians seem to be finding themselves enraptured by Trump. If there ever were a guy in it for himself and a spotlight, it would be Donald Trump.

Sharr on April 12, 2011 at 4:12 PM

I find it interesting those who complain about celebrity politicians seem to be finding themselves enraptured by Trump. If there ever were a guy in it for himself and a spotlight, it would be Donald Trump.

Sharr on April 12, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Is there anyone else taking on Obama on the ‘untouchable’ issues?

If not, then beggars can’t be choosers.

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Democrats have a very important quality that is completely lacking within the GOP . . . unity of effort. They get behind their pick and they push like hell while the Republicans whine, cry, chase their tails and trash their own.

rplat on April 12, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Not the full picture.

Democrats marginalize or exile those who do not follow the orthodoxy (e.g., Joe Lieberman and the near total purging of the Sam Nunn-Scoop Jackson wing of their party). Republicans are more classicly “liberal” and tolerant of disagreement. How else would we keep electing RINOs? The democrats at this point in their history are not capable of supporting a moderate.

If we didn’t have so many Republicans who gave insulting lip service to conservatism and degraded its legacy and/or refused to identify and form arguments against Leftism (and we’re asleep at the switch as Leftism dug its claws into our country) we might be less inclined to quarrel in the preliminary rounds. But I seem to recall some serious breaches within the democrat party during the Clinton-Obama struggles (and those two were very close ideologically and policy-wise).

There is nothing wrong with disagreements and debates. They are clarifying and strengthening.

rrpjr on April 12, 2011 at 4:28 PM

From the headlines above:

For example, Trump professes to support free trade, yet proposes a 25% tax on imported goods from China to level what he sees as trade imbalances in the global economy. It’s a contemptuous proposal which would immediately punish Americans by raising the price on virtually everything we buy. (this is what I meant by destroying Wal Mart and hurting consumers.)

He has also called for regulators to stop European stock operator Deutsche Börse’s ( DBOEY ) planned $9.5 billion buyout of the NYSE Euronext ( NYX: 37.67*, +0.08, +0.21% ) , telling Fox Business Network, “I don’t want foreign countries owning the New York Stock Exchange.” If he was the president, he added, he “wouldn’t even have allowed the discussions to take place.” In a capitalist country, shareholders make that kind of decision, not regulators . Trump sees a clear role for government picking winners and losers in the economy, just the same as the previous presidents he claims to critique.

On top of that, he has pushed for a one-time 14.25% tax on the rich as a means of supplementing funding for Social Security and Medicaid, along with universal health care.

Trump is no conservative, he is a pretender sucking up to the right and the Tea Party right now because it suits his purpose. I cannot entrust him with the leadership of our country, or the conservative movement, period.

Besides, the guy is a real ass.

Brian1972 on April 12, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Also from the headlines above:

On top of that, he has pushed for a one-time 14.25% tax on the rich as a means of supplementing funding for Social Security and Medicaid, along with universal health care . Philosophically, those positions are indistinguishable from the anti-capitalist political establishment now in power.

Trump, of course, is free to run and support whatever platform he wishes, as are his many fans across the country. But despite his personal fortune, they should know his proposals and political philosophy are far from capitalist. Punitive and redistributionist taxes, centralized planning, barriers to trade and an entitlement “social safety net” are all ideas straight out of Karl Marx , not John Galt .

“You need a person like me to run this country for a while because we have to get this country back so that we’re respected again.” Trump told CNN recently.

A businessman whose proposals seek to destroy capitalism? There’s nothing to respect about that.

from “Donald Trump is No Capitalist”

http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/donald-trump-is-no-capitalist-1302540677772/

Trump is just another NWO/globalist plant…we do not want this guy in office…he’ll do the same things as Obama, but we’ll be blamed for it, and will not be able to get anyone elected for at least another election cycle…the time is now to repair this country by returning to Constitutional principles, and we have no time to delay.

Peggy Snow Cahill on April 12, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Trump is no conservative, he is a pretender sucking up to the right and the Tea Party right now because it suits his purpose.

Brian1972 on April 12, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Well thank goodness a few people get it. If Donald doesn’t red line your BS detector, then you need to check the batteries or something. This guy’s conservatism is as believable as the comb over.

Both Sarah Palin and Herman Cain have been ‘taking it to Obama’ for awhile now, and doing a much better job of it, too. Also, neither of them have the character issues that the Donald does. Also, I am certainly no fan of Romney, but I will take a squish over a poser any day.

bitsy on April 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Yes because Mitt or Tim are such gobsmackingly awesome choices. I’m just feeling all sorts of tingles up my legs for them.

/sarc

Sultry Beauty on April 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Is there anyone else taking on Obama on the ‘untouchable’ issues?

If not, then beggars can’t be choosers.

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I’m all for him needling Obama. I’m just not for him splitting the vote and giving Obama four more years.

Also the issues Trump’s needling Obama on are not “winning issues”. Winning issues are rising gas prices and food costs – all of which can and should be put on Obama. There are better firebrands to do that with than this egocentric shock Meister.

Sharr on April 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM

If the birth certificate hunt turns up nothing, Trump fades into oblivion. If it does…he’s a national hero. And our next president.

Pretty big “if”, though…

Grace_is_sufficient on April 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM

An Independent who follows politics

Vince on April 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Oxymoron.

fossten on April 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Had to laugh at that.

But I have to say, I don’t trust Trump for a second. I don’t think he stands a chance of winning the election, but I do think he stands a good chance of splitting off enough votes to hand Obama the election, intentionally or not.

tom on April 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM

I’ve been VERY busy so I watched the interview and jotted down my thoughts. Sorry if it’s too long, I wanna read your comments.

DISCLAIMER: What I wrote below is merely based on what I perceived of Trump on this interview, and I still totally support and I am waiting for Palin to announce. The fact that I may agree with some of his statements or policies does not mean that I endorse him or support him in any way for the 2012 race; we’re still on diapers.

I wrote these as the interview progressed. If there are any questions pls. go back and review the timeline.

1-I am not stupid nor anybody here. Of course he has started his campaign under the table!

2-I like what he said about Sarah Palin, of course; Trump won’t go after anybody that trashes him. He’s the male SarahCuda.

3-Has he been to India? When? On what trade/business deals? I don’t have information on it. He should expand on deals and transactions with India.

4-His ego is WAAAAYYY high, but I also attempt to get into his head when he speaks so flourishly about himself and pours that so confidently. I used to be on executive level and anybody who has had a job interview (esp. lately) know that several of the questions demand our contributions that we have made before, and what we can bring to the table NOW and in the near future. Corporations don’t want to hire wuzzes or empty suits/eh I take that back…

5-Snarky denial about the bankruptcy question-he deflected and went after her with that question. Interesting….

6-The possibility of a 3rd party (I am WITH YOU on this!) I see it as a reality if the GOP does not wise up. Keep in mind he has donated in the past to BOTH parties, so in my world he’s a bisexual/snark.

7-”He’s in it to win it” just like Governor Palin, heh!

8-Trump is on target when he says he’s not like Romney. ITA.

9-The question about sacrifice and split the Republican votes is excellent, he knows about our concerns, he shows he cares about this issue but I am not 100% sold of course that he means it BY HEART. He wants to win bar none. Trump is fine either way.

10-On Libya-He agrees with Palin on the precept that we should have been there three weeks before we did.

11-On his oil policy-It’s interesting if his polity does come to fruition, how would the international community would take that? Not that I care, ykwim…

12-Question: Do we have to pay Great Britain on wars we go to together, do we have to compensate on past engagements as well so they can arm up for the next one?

13-Iran? HELL YEA! Make money on the Iraq oil-sweet!

14-China (his forté)-He should totally school the GOP on it.

15-His domestic policy promises-I didn’t hear anything significant. What he is good at is building, building and more building. “Free trade is a fair trade”-is that a quote from Palin? Sounds familiar.

16-On the “building cities all over China” it reminded me of this:-Check this out and get your panties in a bunch.

17-on South America’s trade deals-well, improvements can always be made. Good deals that can be made with Central and South America are basically on flowers of all types, especially roses; fruits and vegetables w/Costa Rica; jewelry with Guatemala; Mexico-I got illegals to send back to them; give us tequila and cerveza in exchange. South America is quite rich in minerals, they create also great furniture, bathrooms, light fixtures and flooring. Very talented we can get materials really cheap. I wish the US can look to Puerto Rico for imports/exports and do so with tax exemptions. After all, we’re a US Territory.

18-Trump just merely going back to his own saddle if he is a no-go? He’d be a great advisor/czar! LOLZ!

ProudPalinFan on April 12, 2011 at 7:21 PM

They made it impossible for her to continue as Governor. She didn’t have the money to defend herself.

She was in a position where she was not allowed to use state money to defend herself, not allowed to accept contributions to defend herself, and didn’t have enough of her own money to defend herself. One of her biggest weaknesses was the fact that all her competitors had a lot more money than she did.

So now: she’s no longer in a vulnerable position, and has millions of dollars so she can’t get shoehorned back into that position.

In short, she solved the problem both for the moment and going forward. And without letting herself be sidelined politically.

They knew what they were doing and they beat her at the game of politics.

Wrong. They tried to beat her, but they didn’t. She’s stronger and better positioned now than she was then. That’s not “getting beaten.”

Palin was beaten by her opponents in the end.

Hogwash. She hasn’t ended, so how was she beaten? She’s in better shape now than before this hardball tactic started, so how was she beaten?

Every war has its lost battles. By your standard, Washington was a failure because he lost a lot more battles than he won. But losing a battle is not losing a war.

Politics is a tough tough game. I don’t see evidence that she can play it well.

You have to do pretty well to be elected governor. You have to do pretty well to be chosen on the VP ticket in a national election. The whole reason she’s so hated by the left is because she’s a great campaigner, and they saw her potential. If she was as weak as you suggest, do you really think anyone would have bothered trying to bottle her up in Alaska and ruin her career?

And this whole strategy against her in Alaska depended on her being unable to defend herself. How will she ever be in that position again?

I don’t see that as a small thing. National Democrats are far more ruthless that what she faced inside Alaska.

petunia on April 12, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Who do you think was behind the whole effort in Alaska? The national Democrats in Alaska were behind the whole thing. They just used allies in Alaska to actually file the accusations. The problem they have is that they’ve pretty much thrown everything at her they possibly can already.

tom on April 12, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Proves he will be a great politician. He is more interested in his own ego than the good of the country. God help us….

ultracon on April 12, 2011 at 8:03 PM

What a waste of five pages of commenting by what sounds like a lot of utter looosers. Seriously, looosers, grousing about this fear, that fear, running this game, that game…meanwhile, eyes not on the ball, no one looking at any goals other than to clear the field of players.

Calling Trump “not a Conservative” from some here who are supporters of abortion is abhorrently contrary. Trump does not support (nor believe in) abortion. Nor the taxpayers funding abortion.

Trump doesn’t support (or believe in) “‘gay’ marriage” and I think that’s what’s bugging many a Libertarian (here, elsewhere).

Huckabee just said, few days ago, that the Republicans ‘should have conceded’ and “bargained” on the current 2011 Budget and now, today, we see that what the Republicans DID manage “to get” (“the best we could get” said Boehner) was a lot of hoodwinkery by the Democrats masquereding as “cuts”. If we’d had Huckabee in the White House — though I respect his personal beliefs as to his Baptist faith — he’d have been urging the GOP to fold, bargain, roll over, take it as it’s being “offered” by the Democrats. I can’t project what Romney’s reaction would have been because he’s been silent throughout this Budget issue, BUT Trump, had he been in the White House or will be, would decidedly NOT have taken a loser-road on this issue as to the GOP and WOULD have led a demand for curtailed spending.

Trump is right that Obama’s not leading, that he’s not behaving with courage in the Presidency, that he’s being (perhaps) intentionally ineffective.

I like Cain but I doubt he’d ever win a national election for the Presidency. I also doubt that Palin would, either, as also Bachman — THOUGH i respect each of those person’s (mostly) political positions and certainly Cain’s courage.

I think what’s bugging people in these comments is that Trump denounces a few of the “most have to have” points that Libertarians really want. So enter the American-Crossroads-marries-Plouffle termite-method of chewing away at any surge in GOP confidence on behalf of their subterranean plans (to be announced once you can’t say “no” to whatever their plan was, since cememted with you in it).

I saw this sort of Libertarian/Leftwing/Plouffle/Axelrod/SnipeAndGripe thing happen last election and we, the Right, “got McCain” and from the moment forth I knew it was for purposes of a GOP-loss in 2008…and it WAS. Every other direction sought by other possible nominess among the GOP was denounced with the same termite-chewing as is happening now about Trump. I do question just how many user accounts the Liberals have to maintain on this and other sites to play their “but I’m a Conservative” game while they are anything but that.

Lourdes on April 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM

From this day forth, no “ardent Palin fan” can ever complain about Palin being “Palinized” by the Left Media. You’re so eager to chew up Trump that you look ridiculous, yet again, even trying to repeatedly promote Palin.

Palin says McCain represents her political views, that they’re “matched” or something of that sort. Whattheheck does that say about PALIN?!

Every candidate needs to be closely critiqued and examined. Every single one of them. But that doesn’t mean some of them or all but one of them is to be chewed up and hashed over in derogatory nastiness about their personal characteristics and imagined “ego” issues. If that IS the standard, however, then it applies to all candidates.

And I agree with Page One comments that this post is a hatchet job on Donald Trump. It’s tawdry, in fact.

Lourdes on April 12, 2011 at 8:44 PM

I used to respect Karl Rove. I enjoyed reading his book. Now I’m rethinking that source.

Lourdes on April 12, 2011 at 8:45 PM

And, by the way, Chris Christie:

– supports abortion;

– supports “‘gay’ marriage”;

– supports increased gun ownership and use restrictions;

– only GOP guy who attended Obama’s White House martini fest recently;

– and more.

He’s a social Liberal, a Leftwinger, darling of Libertarians because he’s…Leftwing, Liberal.

And some here claim he’s the preferred candidate or some sort of savior of the GOP?! Is this place Democrat Underground or what?

Lourdes on April 12, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Who would he pick for VP? That questions’ been killing me.

ProudPalinFan on April 12, 2011 at 9:00 PM

What a waste of five pages of commenting by what sounds like a lot of utter looosers. Seriously, looosers…

Are you six years old?

Calling Trump “not a Conservative” from some here who are supporters of abortion is abhorrently contrary. Trump does not support (nor believe in) abortion. Nor the taxpayers funding abortion.

He used to, dimwit. And being pro-choice is not the litmus test for conservatism, regardless of what some think. However, a guy who recently was pro-choice, anti-gun, and in favor of a massive tax on the rich to pay off the national debt? Not a conservative.

Trump doesn’t support (or believe in) “‘gay’ marriage” and I think that’s what’s bugging many a Libertarian (here, elsewhere).

Lourdes on April 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Wow. You really don’t have a clue what’s important right now.

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Watched it & loved it. I’m shocked that so many people here, inc. the mods, are being obtuse about what he says about an Independent run. He VERY clearly states that he would do it only if he thinks he can win beause he understands that he would be taking votes away from the GOP candidate otherwise. So stop with the lies that he’s going third-party to hurt the GOP.

Loved the way he handled this very tough and in-your-face interviewer. She came in with a chip on her shoulder and he handled it very well.

Loved his closing remarks about how he loves this country.

Good stuff. Too bad people are spinning it as bad. Must be afraid of him something awful.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 12, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Good stuff. Too bad people are spinning it as bad. Must be afraid of him something awful.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 12, 2011 at 9:23 PM

I’m not. Like I wrote at another thread, I believe this is quite a joyride and will be very interesting to watch.

ProudPalinFan on April 12, 2011 at 9:43 PM

I’m shocked that so many people here, inc. the mods, are being obtuse about what he says about an Independent run. He VERY clearly states that he would do it only if he thinks he can win beause he understands that he would be taking votes away from the GOP candidate otherwise. So stop with the lies that he’s going third-party to hurt the GOP.

Aslans Girl on April 12, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Hmmm….I tried to listen very carefully, and what I heard was that he would be uncomfortable with taking votes away from a Republican candidate–but HE WOULD DO IT ANYWAY.

Sorry, no sale.

ElectricPhase on April 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM

I said it before, and I’ll say it again: “Bull in a china shop.”

The media will play up every move he makes, helping to generate a faux “groundswell” amongst anti-Obama voters, and then when he has made hash of the Republican primary process, and probably launched a ridiculous “independent” move, will rise to celebrate the second immaculation of the Obama-messiah.

Remember, you heard it here first.

/Mr Lynn

MrLynn on April 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM

I like having Trump in for now, although I am suffering from birth certificate overload. Trump is good TV. He keeps the political media focused on him and not the latest Palin nontroversy. He asks questions no one else could get away with. This is good. He’s not going to win but so what?

alwaysfiredup on April 12, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Otherwise, this is a second coming of Perot.

You see but you do not observe. You hear but you do not listen.

Heckle on April 13, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Didn’t we try this already in the 90′s with Clinton, Bush & Perot? Look how well THAT worked out, and Hussein Obama is a zillion times WORSE than Clinton.
Donald…go away, just like Perot did in 91

p51d007 on April 13, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Watched it & loved it. I’m shocked that so many people here, inc. the mods, are being obtuse about what he says about an Independent run. He VERY clearly states that he would do it only if he thinks he can win because he understands that he would be taking votes away from the GOP candidate otherwise. So stop with the lies that he’s going third-party to hurt the GOP.

Aslans Girl on April 12, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Apparently to them facts do not matter, just their agenda.

Heckle on April 13, 2011 at 12:49 AM

I’m transcribing this myself since a lot of people are spinning this to look like Trump’s some jerk who wants to hurt the party. Listen again, he says at th 5:26 mark:

“I could also possibly win as an independent, otherwise I wouldn’t do it. If I can’t win I’m not doing it for any other reason because I like winning, I do, you know, I’m — I’m only in it for one thing.”

He is NOT Perot who ran knowing he wouldn’t win and he would hurt the GOP in the process. Trump, after the part I transcribed, goes on about how he doesn’t want to hurt the GOP. Stop spinning and listen.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 13, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Aslans Girl, you should go over to AmericanThinker later. There are articles on Trump there that are much fairer both by author and by most commenters. And, Ann Barnhardt will have an article there in about an hour and comments on it will open up about a half hour after that.

Heckle on April 13, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Oh, Ann Barnhardt, my new hero! Thanks, Heckle, I’ll head on over. LOVE her.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 13, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Aslans Girl on April 13, 2011 at 1:01 AM

AG it’s likely that Trump as Prez would have an opportunity to replace two, maybe even three SCOTUS justices. Are you confident that they’ll be Roberts/Alito types?

fossten on April 13, 2011 at 9:19 AM

H. Ross Perot

“Made more money faster. Lost more money in one day. Led the biggest jailbreak in history.

Perot attended public schools and Texarkana Junior College. He entered the United States Naval Academy in 1949 and graduated in 1953. While there, he was class president, chairman of the honor committee, and battalion commander. Profession: Founder of Electronic Data Systems (EDS) in Dallas.

This thread compares the late Texan Perot-apple whose profession was data manipulation for the intelligence community to the current non-Texan Trump-orange whose profession is real estate development and commercial trade.

The thread also bemoans Perot’s participation in the political process, and rebroadcasts the Republican elitist establishment’s mantra that damned constitutional conservatives are to blame for America’s ills.

So much easier to target those demanding a purge of corruption than to lift one finger to allow the demise of the federal authoritarian government in power.

“If” compounded amounts to a big pile of IF. “If” Trump runs. “If” Trump runs as a GOP. “If” the “big tent” RNC establishment elitists refuse to recognize Trump as a Republican (current propaganda from the “conservative” anti-Tea-Party-radicals “right-of-center” media). “If” Trump decides to run as an Independent.

Meanwhile, Trump stimulates political discourse that the establishment “bipartisan” uniparty will not tolerate. Look who’s on that uniparty bandwagon.

maverick muse on April 13, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Are you confident that they’ll be Roberts/Alito types?

More confident than if those appointments came from Romney.

maverick muse on April 13, 2011 at 9:35 AM

More confident than if those appointments came from Romney.

maverick muse on April 13, 2011 at 9:35 AM

I’m not a Romney fan, but that still doesn’t answer my question.

fossten on April 13, 2011 at 10:06 AM

He is NOT Perot who ran knowing he wouldn’t win and he would hurt the GOP in the process. Trump, after the part I transcribed, goes on about how he doesn’t want to hurt the GOP. Stop spinning and listen.

Aslans Girl on April 13, 2011 at 1:01 AM

You need to remember that Trump doesn’t believe he’s capable of losing.

ElectricPhase on April 13, 2011 at 11:00 AM

What a narcissistic turd. He may as well be an Obama operative. He is not a conservative.

ReneePA on April 13, 2011 at 12:16 PM

She has, but not like Trump…so now, what policies that Trump stated in the interview are you against? And which ones are you for?
I would bet that you are for almost every single item he was adamant about.
But so far, just emotion.

right2bright on April 12, 2011 at 10:33 AM

No not like Trump. She has done a far superior job than Trump and has done it with class and style. When it comes to values she walks the walk.

ReneePA on April 13, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Trump is an idiot. A very lucky idiot.

A local development drama that the Donald was involved failed, epically.

Trump entered into a agreement with NY State Parks at Jones Beach to build a catering hall. (Yes where all the bodies have been discovered.) The plan fell apart because Trump demanded the facility have a basement. Yes, that architectural engineering genius Donald Trump, wanted his building to have a basement on a barrier island. I am sure this will not surprise anyone but Jones Beach is a flood zone. In addition, the water table is probably about 5 ft. I am not fan of NY State Parks but Trump just wouldn’t listen to reason. The whole deal fell apart.

Anyone who wants to build a basement at the beach is an idiot. Honestly I don’t think Obama is that dumb.

peterargus on April 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM

After seeing Trump’s interview with Hannity last night, his stance isn’t as rigid. He says he realizes that an independent run would take away votes from the Republican, and the last thing he wants to do is enable Obama to win. He says he’ll run indy only if polls clearly show that he could win, otherwise not.

MassVictim on April 15, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5