The Start of an Independent Run
 

It seems to have started. Donald Trump has charged that Cruz stole the Iowa caucus by outright lies committed by Cruz. Trump wnts Cruz' victory nullified or a re-do of the Iowa caucus held.

Of course, neither of these things will happen.

Trump will most likely tear up his pledge not to run as an independent stating the RNC is unfair and therefore the contract is null and void - just as Trump says he does with bad contracts in business.

So what? If he runs as an Independent at this stage of the game, he will get no votes. He will have no credibility. Works for me. Rubio will be elected easier, if that is the case.

I haven't heard or read about Trump's claims but it would not surprise me in the least. Actually I believe he intentionally made these claims because, while he doesn't care what people think, he needs a legitimate reason excuse to break his pledge to run as a 3rd party.

This guy s a hedge fund guy through and through and for that reason alone he should not be elected president. Like Obama no one will ever trust Trump not Congress not any nation and certainly not the American people.

voters who follow Trump want to strike back. The rest of us want to elect a president.

Personal Best Regards:

Trump running independent will only take votes from republican nominee. Therefore, guaranteeing democrat president. I can pretty much bet NO democrat will vote for trumpet and not enough independent voters that would vote for him. This maybe what he planned all along to get hilerbitch elected.
( funny I typed in Hilary and much of put e in it and hilerbitch came up on spell check :1rotfl::1rotfl:

Sure like Senator Rubio more than any of the other Republican candidates.

Senator Rubio might also beat Secretary Clinton unless she makes a very wise pick as Vice President like Bernie Saunders.

I can't help thinking Rubio is a typical Obama style politician with a lot of promises and not much reality. But that is what wins elections in the uneducated country.

There's a lot of difference between Obummer and Rubio. For one thing, you have a 15 year politician versus a two year senator with a few years as a lawyer for community organizing.

You have Rubio, that love America, versus Obama that hates whites, Jews, Britts, and America in general.

You have Rubio that will listen to the voters, versus Obama that believes he knows better what is good for us, than we do.

There is no perfect candidate, but Hillary the criminal and Sanders the socialist make it easier to stay away from the Democrat vote.

We have plenty of GOP candidates to choose from. If you can't settle on one of them, then you are just too hard to please. If you want another black president, you have Carson. If you want a female president, you have Fiorina. If you want a Latino president, you Cruz and Rubio. If you want a businessman/woman you have Cruz and Fiorina. If you want a governor, you have or had several. If you wanted a doctor, you have two. If you want experience, you have a few. You really have no excuse, other than there is no Muslim running this time.

Your reply supports my point, thank you. I think you would have consumed the kool-aid with Jim Jones in Guyana if you honestly believe what you have written. Rubio, Bush, Kaisch, and Clinton will only continue down the path we are going now. By that I mean kicking can down the road without making tough decisions. I've only heard 3 candidates suggest some tough decisions. Cruz with ethanol, Christie with SS changes, and Bernie with raising taxes to support health care. It is not a question of supporting these things but the idea they had the courage to challenge them. We do need sometime different to change course even if it is Bernie, Trump, Paul, or Cruz.

Rubio doesn't have a prayer of winning the presidency, his views are too far to the right to appeal to mainstream America. He doesn't believe in climate warming and has voted against many environmental issues, he's pro abortion and does not believe in abortion even in cases of incest and rape, he is pagainst stem cell research which offers so much hope to people with terrible diseases, he is against gay marriage, is in favor of even more tax cuts for big corporations some of whom do not pay any tax at all right now. Those ideas might play well with the *********'s in the villages, but most Americans will not vote for someone like that.

I assume you wrote both of the above comments.

You seem to take it for granted that everyone believes as you do, but that isn't the case. Most of those areas that you claim is the right view, such as abortion, stem cell research, climate control, etc, has been determined by politicians and not the majority. Gay marriage has already been determined by each state as being against the concept of marriage defined as between man and woman. But, the liberal supreme court deemed otherwise, not the American majority. So you see, you are all wet in your theory that no one would vote for Rubio. I dare say that there will even be some democrats that will vote for him over a criminal and a socialist. The only options available to the American Democrat at this time. Unless the Dems come up with a viable candidate to run as their representative party, then they will either not vote or will vote for a moderate Republican, such as Rubio. I find it very/VERY amusing that you consider him to be conservative. It just goes to show you have far left you have gone. Obviously, you are one of the protected mass that have enjoyed the benefit of the liberal left socialistic freebies. Your comments are so naive, it is a wonder that this country has not regressed faster, if there are others that believe as you do.

It is very humorous that people like you consider capitalism and freedom as regressive while espousing ancient socialism as being progressive. You would be very funny if not so pathetic.

Killary may be the Dem's choice for nomination, but I doubt she will find anyone to run with her other than someone with an ego as big as her's and would not be competition with her. Someone that she could boss around. Oh, and I was not speaking of Bill, although he would probably jump at the chance. Of course, he would probably have to take a gap in his presidential retirement pension, IF he is held to the same rules as the rest of government employees that return to work for the government.

So are you saying the voters are more likely to vote for an unqualified, unethical, feloneous, liar instead? Using your words;
"...most Americans will not vote for someone like that...."[/QUOTE]

Your last paragraph makes a lot of sense, if you want to vote for someone that doesn't have a chance of winning the Republican nomination for president. The Republicans have three, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio, that will probably have a chance to win the nomination. All three are total light weights in getting anything done in Washington. Two are nothing but noise. The third is well rehearsed in what to say, the boy in the bubble.

You most certainly are not presenting Clinton as a heavyweight.
Name one thing she has accomplished for America that demonstrates her ability to do or have done other than take up space and line her pockets!