Trump & the Constitution Party -- split

[erowe1]

What would actually be ideal for the Constitution Party will be if Trump fails to get the Republican nomination. The CP could possibly be the best protectionist alternative for his disenchanted supporters if they want to punish the GOP and are looking for protectionist alternatives.

 

[jmdrake]

What would actually be ideal for the Constitution Party will be if Trump fails to get the Republican nomination. The CP could possibly be the best protectionist alternative for his disenchanted supporters if they want to punish the GOP and are looking for protectionist alternatives.

If Trump doesn't get the nomination he is going to run himself you can bet on it. Sure he'll have ballot access problems, but he will find a way to run.

 

[nikcers]

If Trump doesn't get the nomination he is going to run himself you can bet on it. Sure he'll have ballot access problems, but he will find a way to run.

I think the polls would change if people understood the sore loser laws. I know right now it shows that if he runs 3rd party people will support him but that will change dramatically once they know that the odds are stacked against him if he runs third party. Lots of people hate Clinton enough to vote for anyone on the R ticket. This is the one thing you can bet on.

 

[kahless]

What would actually be ideal for the Constitution Party will be if Trump fails to get the Republican nomination. The CP could possibly be the best protectionist alternative for his disenchanted supporters if they want to punish the GOP and are looking for protectionist alternatives.

You described me and it is what I have been saying here for months. I was hoping the CP would put up a good candidate or have Trump on the ballot for the reasons you describe.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

That would be pretty sad if you are implying the guy does not have a sound platform and has to mull it over first. At least Trump gave us his policy positions in fine detail albeit in dribs and drabs over the course of the year and he has not even received his parties nomination yet.

It would however make sense if he is just keeping the CP ballot access warm for Trump.

How ironic would it be for the Constitution Party to nominate someone who wants to take a big Trump dump all over the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights?

I would like to think that at least this couldn't happen.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

I don't think there is anyone more anti-Constitution running than Trump, although Hillary and Kasich are strong competition.

 

[Mad Raven]

Has a third party ever yanked back and handed the nomination over to someone else later? Isn't it kind of a done deal, written guarantee of support and all that?

The Constitution Party would be a weird fit for Trump, but anyway, if Trump should lose at the convention and run third party, he will probably take that party past 5% of the vote and create mayhem next election with the matching funds. That's the good kind of mayhem, not the "burn it all down" anarchist mayhem.

 

[openfire]

Yeah, if he was like Trump and just paid someone to make up stances that are popular.

Taking stances that represent what the people want, what a novel idea.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Taking stances that represent what the people want, what a novel idea.

It is a novel idea when "the people" are so stupid and don't understand anything except "being tough".

 

[William Tell]

Taking stances that represent what the people want, what a novel idea.

I don't really think Trump's stances are genius, but he certainly knows what some people want.

I realize some people agree with Trump when he gushes that Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country, for our country. Without it, you wouldn’t have roads, you wouldn’t have hospitals, you wouldn’t have anything.

I realize some people disagreed with Ron Paul when he said Trump is a dangerous person

I realize some people want to send 30,000 troops to Syria.

I realize some of you fall in love with any man who says he is "the most militaristic person that you will find."

I realize some of the American people agree with closing that internet up in some ways. I know some people cheered when Trump said that that Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' and agreed with Trump that these are foolish people.

I realize that some people faint with adoration when a presidential candidate calls for Edward Snowden to be executed.

I realize that some people clap when a guy says that single payer health care works well in Canada, and incredibly well in Scotland.

I realize some people are anti 2nd Amendment, and want a gun ban for those on the no-fly list.

I know some people think waterboarding is fine but not nearly tough enough.

I know some people want to "bomb the hell out of them".

What I don't understand, is what those people are doing on this site.

 

[kahless]

How ironic would it be for the Constitution Party to nominate someone who wants to take a big Trump dump all over the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights?

I would like to think that at least this couldn't happen.

I think they would hold their noses for the problematic areas to advance their own interests in becoming a viable national 3rd party using Trump as the vehicle.

 

[kahless]

That is way more than enough time where he could have at least delegated to someone to put up a list of positions on his existing website or a 2016 campaign website.

Kotin, what does this have to do with Trump? Again, rather than engage me in a conversation to debate and discuss the issues you continue to either hide behind the rep system or abuse your moderator privilege.

So that is the way it is going to be now?

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I think they would hold their noses for the problematic areas to advance their own interests in becoming a viable national 3rd party using Trump as the vehicle.

The Constitution Party rejected Alan Keyes because of his foreign policy, even though Keyes had much more name recognition than Chuck Baldwin. I'd think they would do the same for Trump.

 

[William Tell]

The Constitution Party rejected Alan Keyes because of his foreign policy, even though Keyes had much more name recognition than Chuck Baldwin. I'd think they would do the same for Trump.

They already have.

 

[kahless]

The Constitution Party rejected Alan Keyes because of his foreign policy, even though Keyes had much more name recognition than Chuck Baldwin. I'd think they would do the same for Trump.

Keyes did not have the money nor the following as does Trump. This was speculated here and by MSM pundits long before Darrell Castle won the nomination. To me it adds weight to the theory when someone whom has won his parties nomination does not have a website to promote his positions and candidacy in this day and age.

 

[kahless]

They already have.

Source?

 

[William Tell]

Source?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...l-Nomination&p=6198100&viewfull=1#post6198100

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Keyes did not have the money nor the following as does Trump. This was speculated here and by MSM pundits long before Darrell Castle won the nomination. To me it adds weight to the theory when someone whom has won his parties nomination does not have a website to promote his positions and candidacy in this day and age.

The Constitution Party doesn't have state primaries and caucuses for it's voters to be involved in choosing the nominee. So I don't see why he would need one yet.

 

[kahless]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...l-Nomination&p=6198100&viewfull=1#post6198100

That quote sure sounds like a fitting placeholder for you know who.

Anyone remember the LP back 2012 where Gary said he would step aside for Ron?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I don't really think Trump's stances are genius, but he certainly knows what some people want.

I realize some people agree with Trump when he gushes that Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country, for our country. Without it, you wouldn’t have roads, you wouldn’t have hospitals, you wouldn’t have anything.

I realize some people disagreed with Ron Paul when he said Trump is a dangerous person...

What I don't understand, is what those people are doing on this site.

Because, a desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy. Our movement has been systematically blocked three straight times at the Presidential level by a kingmaker establishment, and the Trump phenomenon has acted as a dangerous remedy for that disease. To build the new palace we want, sometimes you have to put a wrecking ball to the bad existing building first. We don't expect pretty policy from a wrecking ball, but strength and impact, so Trump's rhetoric should be thought of as mainly interim empty gestures (like much of Rand's compromise campaign rhetoric).

That quote sure sounds like a fitting placeholder for you know who.

Anyone remember the LP back 2012 where Gary said he would step aside for Ron?

That could very well be what the CP is preparing for.