Trump Threatening Third Party Run Again

[cigaretteman]

Donald Trump not only went off on Jeb Bush on Twitter on Monday but also tore into the Republican National Committee for what he says is an inability to stay neutral, citing Saturday night’s GOP debate as an example.

Trump was repeatedly booed on Saturday night. During the debate he said the RNC stacked the audience against him, a claim he doubled down on Monday while also calling it a “disgrace.”

“Those tickets were all special-interest people,” Trump said Monday at an event in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. “And I know them! I’m looking in the audience, some of them are friends of mine and yet they’re booing me because they’re having fun. The guy’s booing me and he’s laughing and he’s waving and he’s going, ‘boo, boo.’ And he’s waving at me. I’m saying, ‘This is crazy!’ But I know many of those people, lobbyists and special interests.”




The Republican front-runner said the RNC is violating the loyalty pledge he signed in September saying he wouldn’t abandon the GOP for an independent run as long as the RNC treated him fairly.

“I signed a pledge,” Trump said, according to The State. “But the pledge is not being honored by them. … They are in default of their pledge.”

Trump also said the “RNC better get its act together.”

However, RNC communications director Sean Spicer said the organization does have its act together and Trump’s claim of stacking the audience isn’t true.

“Each candidate received 100 tickets, which is the largest amount so far,” Spicer told Business Insider. “The candidates as a whole were the largest group of ticket holders.”

Bush super PAC hits Trump with profanity-filled ad
Lindsey Graham: Donald Trump embraces 'nut job views'
The debate was the second major beef Trump has had with the RNC in less than a week.

On Saturday, he slammed the group for using his name and likeness in a fundraising pitch.

“The RNC, which is probably not on my side, just illegally put out a fundraising notice saying Donald Trump wants you to contribute to the RNC,” Trump wrote on Facebook while also posting a screenshot of the fundraising plea. “‘Get on Trump’s List’ is totally unauthorized, do not pay! I am self funding my campaign! Notice has just been withdrawn.”

Would Trump actually do the same as Michael Bloomberg and consider a third-party run this late in the race?

While it seems like any talk would be an idle threat, Trump has followed through on risky moves before. In January — after threatening to not show up at previous debates — he boycotted a Fox News debate following his ongoing spat with moderator Megyn Kelly.

http://national.suntimes.com/nation...p-blasts-republican-national-committee-pledge

 

[ottumwan in tx]

he needs to just do it. screw the gop clowns. I think he has enough votes he does not need them

 

[ICWestfan]

he needs to just do it. screw the gop clowns. I think he has enough votes he does not need them

I agree with you. It would be hilarious to see both GOP and Democrat members bail on the eventual nominees. Maybe when Trump bails and Bernie gets screwed they can join together and run as team.

 

[Run&Blade]

Gop sucks, they controlled everything and the debt continued to rise.

The mantra "can't spend enough on military" is a joke and you can bet many are getting paid by defense contractors.

Military needs to shrink and if countries want the u.s. to prtect them they should pay for it.

 

[ping72]

I think a 4 candidate race (trump, Bloomberg, and 2 party nominees) would be fascinating.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Gop sucks, they controlled everything and the debt continued to rise.

The mantra "can't spend enough on military" is a joke and you can bet many are getting paid by defense contractors.

Military needs to shrink and if countries want the u.s. to prtect them they should pay for it.

And it went down when the Democrats controlled everything?

 

[cigaretteman]

And it went down when the Democrats controlled everything?

No, but under Obama the deficit has declined at the fastest rate since the end of WWII, and the deficit spending early in his presidency was just what was required to pull the US out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, in fact, it should have been much larger.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

No, but under Obama the deficit has declined at the fastest rate since the end of WWII, and the deficit spending early in his presidency was just what was required to pull the US out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, in fact, it should have been much larger.

these deficit things are smoke and mirrors. if I made 10 bucks, cash, spent 12 on my bills, I went in the deficit 2 bucks, slapped it on credit card. { card balance: 7 trillion} if Obama made ten bucks, spent 11 on bills, slapped only one dollar on his credit card, which has a 19 trillion dollar balance by the way.... he did reduce the deficit, but he raised the debt a lot.

 

[Raglefant]

these deficit things are smoke and mirrors. if I made 10 bucks, cash, spent 12 on my bills, I went in the deficit 2 bucks, slapped it on credit card. { card balance: 7 trillion} if Obama made ten bucks, spent 11 on bills, slapped only one dollar on his credit card, which has a 19 trillion dollar balance by the way.... he did reduce the deficit, but he raised the debt a lot.

Hmm. Which scenario is better in this example?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Hmm. Which scenario is better in this example?

obviously without a doubt the first one, debt is smaller. getting the debt out of control is not good. now, slapping the money on the card is not good in either example, not good. but a debt which is out of sight and never shall be paid off is way worse than a debt which may be manageable , 7 trillion is more manageable than 19 trillion.

 

[Raglefant]

obviously without a doubt the first one, debt is smaller. getting the debt out of control is not good. now, slapping the money on the card is not good in either example, not good. but a debt which is out of sight and never shall be paid off is way worse than a debt which may be manageable , 7 trillion is more manageable than 19 trillion.

Oh. You just gave yourself a lower balance in this hypothetical scenario. How shrewd.

Well I'm making 10, spending 12 on bills, adding 2 to the credit card, but my balance is only 3 billion. I win!!!

 

[ottumwan in tx]

the point is: people use the deficit to distract from the debt

 

[ottumwan in tx]

the other point is: can trump reduce the debt? I dunno if possible.

 

[Run&Blade]

And it went down when the Democrats controlled everything?

No it didn't but I expect dumbass spending from the left.

 

[strummingram]

I think a 4 candidate race (trump, Bloomberg, and 2 party nominees) would be fascinating.

It would be. And, if we had a system that counted the votes accurately, and it not be rigged, that would be the cherry on top.

 

[Raglefant]

the other point is: can trump reduce the debt? I dunno if possible.

I'm wondering if anyone thinks some portion of that debt increase is due to the circumstances that existed when BO took office, or if it's 100% on him for being wasteful?

 

[cigaretteman]

The majority of it came from W's unpaid for wars and the stimulus spending (which should have been much larger) that saved the US from another Great Depression due to the mess W and the Republicans left behind.

 

[naturalmwa]

Hmm. Which scenario is better in this example?

I don't know, but I would like one of those credit cards.

 

[strummingram]

The majority of it came from W's unpaid for wars and the stimulus spending (which should have been much larger) that saved the US from another Great Depression due to the mess W and the Republicans left behind.

The "debt" has no choice but to increase. It was not from Bush's wars or Obama's wars, or Nixon's wars, or FDR's war. Those things cost us, sure.

The national debt can NEVER BE REVERSED! The system in place, using the Federal Reserve, is built to ONLY INCREASE OUR DEBT!

 

[naturalmwa]

The "debt" has no choice but to increase. It was not from Bush's wars or Obama's wars, or Nixon's wars, or FDR's war. Those things cost us, sure.

The national debt can NEVER BE REVERSED! The system in place, using the Federal Reserve, is built to ONLY INCREASE OUR DEBT!

In that case stop worrying about it. Spend all we want. If there is nothing we can ever do about it we might as well have nice things.

 

[TexMichFan]

I think a 4 candidate race (trump, Bloomberg, and 2 party nominees) would be fascinating.

I was hoping for a couple of independent runs but was thinking Sanders and Trump. I could go with another and add Bloomberg.

 

[strummingram]

In that case stop worrying about it. Spend all we want. If there is nothing we can ever do about it we might as well have nice things.

Do whatever you want. Stop blaming these individuals who are, at best, flunkies. I'm not "worrying about it." I just see it for what it is. I don't pretend it's because of something else.

Nice things? I suppose that's all in how you define "nice things." People love trading true freedom for toys and gizmos that dumb-them-down. It gives them more time to be offended by what they think someone meant when they said something to them. And, decreases their ability to actually discern it. Those are really nice things. And, who is to say we can't have those "nice things" and true liberty by not being perpetually robbed through our rigged monetary system? The nice things don't exist as a result of the theft.

 

[strummingram]

I was hoping for a couple of independent runs but was thinking Sanders and Trump. I could go with another and add Bloomberg.

Sanders wouldn't run as an independent. It would be nice if a lot more candidates with strong followings would run as independents.

 

[naturalmwa]

Do whatever you want. Stop blaming these individuals who are, at best, flunkies. I'm not "worrying about it." I just see it for what it is. I don't pretend it's because of something else.

Nice things? I suppose that's all in how you define "nice things." People love trading true freedom for toys and gizmos that dumb-them-down. It gives them more time to be offended by what they think someone meant when they said something to them. And, decreases their ability to actually discern it. Those are really nice things. And, who is to say we can't have those "nice things" and true liberty by not being perpetually robbed through our rigged monetary system? The nice things don't exist as a result of the theft.

Who is to say? You are to say:

The "debt" has no choice but to increase. It was not from Bush's wars or Obama's wars, or Nixon's wars, or FDR's war. Those things cost us, sure.

The national debt can NEVER BE REVERSED! The system in place, using the Federal Reserve, is built to ONLY INCREASE OUR DEBT!

 

[strummingram]

Who is to say? You are to say:

Who is to say what?

 

[naturalmwa]

Who is to say what?

It was your post, figure it out.

 

[strummingram]

It was your post, figure it out.

I mean... Nice things don't ONLY exist as a result of the theft. "Nice things" are subjective and relative. Theft is usually pretty universal. And, in this case, it's always eroding our monetary system. Devaluing the currency, forcing more labor, increasing stress on the entire human aspect. But, yeah, you get playstations, which you could have just as easily with sound money. I had no idea you could be so easily placated. No, wait... yes, I did.

 

[naturalmwa]

I mean... Nice things don't ONLY exist as a result of the theft. "Nice things" are subjective and relative. Theft is usually pretty universal. And, in this case, it's always eroding our monetary system. Devaluing the currency, forcing more labor, increasing stress on the entire human aspect. But, yeah, you get playstations, which you could have just as easily with sound money. I had no idea you could be so easily placated. No, wait... yes, I did.

I think you lost your own train of thought. You said we couldn't do anything about the monetary system. Then you asked me who is to say we can't do anything about the monetary system. To which I responded you said we can't do anything about the monetary system. So maybe instead of trying to compose banal insults, you might try comprehending the words you type.

 

[strummingram]

I think you lost your own train of thought. You said we couldn't do anything about the monetary system. Then you asked me who is to say we can't do anything about the monetary system. To which I responded you said we can't do anything about the monetary system. So maybe instead of trying to compose banal insults, you might try comprehending the words you type.

No... YOU lost my train of thought. "Then you asked me who is to say we can't do anything about the monetary system. " Is that a question? I never asked you that. I have no idea WTF you're even talking about. We (depending on which "we" you're referring to) COULD do something about the monetary system, but we DON'T! We (our Congress) allows the Fed to do it. Many of you love the job it allegedly does. So, the debt will never reverse, let alone be erased... ever. Not with that system in place. Stop blaming presidents. Stop playing your party game. It doesn't apply here. It never has.

You cannot do anything about the National Debt with the system in place now. I explained why. You needed to be cute and banal yourself by saying "at least we get nice things." I made it very clear how "having nice things" is not mutually exclusive with having the Fed and it's theft and rigging of our monetary system. I also pointed-out that "nice things" is subjective.

Whatever else you want to weave into the comments so you can continue your typical "argue with anything" identity, is up to you. I'm finished.