Former Vice President Dick Cheney (R) on Monday denounced real estate mogul Donald Trump’s plan to restrict all Muslims from immigrating to the U.S., pointing out that the U.S. has always welcomed people of all religions.
“I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in,” he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. “I mean, religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and where we came from. A lot of people, my ancestors got here, because they were Puritans.”
@Rich Wheeler
:”Trump IS saying what he believes– That’s why he has the highest negatives” So you’re saying you’d rather have someone that lies to you and only says ‘what you believe’?
So you’re saying any Repub that goes into the election with numbers as high as Trump can’t win? You’re saying going into the election with lower numbers is better? Then maybe you’ll be voting for Graham, he’s going in with numbers down around 0, so I guess he’s your guy.
Is this a new election theory you have? I always thought persons wanting to be elected wanted to go in with the most supporters, so you’re saying that’s not true, that you really want few supporters, that folks vote for the underdog?
Tell me who the Libertarian candidate is? Don’t think I’ve seen that name on the ballots yet. Oh wait, he doesn’t want anyone to know until election day, that will give him a ‘big’ advantage, according to your theory.
You didn’t say how your Saturday Rainbow Event went?
@Redteam: It’s real simple– Trump- can’t get 50% of delegates–if 60%+ are solidly against him —even you should understand those numbers RT Cruz and Rubio do not have Trump’s negatives.
You are “making up” that I support HRC.–what’s new? lol
I have no idea who Libertarians will nominate but he/she has the same chance as Trump to be our next Prez.–Zero.
@Rich Wheeler:
Is that supposed to be your sense of humor raising it’s head? So your theory is that if you are the leader with 30% or more going into the nom that you can’t win because there are more that are against you than are for you. But if nobody likes you, you’re at ‘oh say 10% or so’ then everyone will get behind you because no one knows enough about you to not like you. Now we know why you voted for Obozo.
Why won’t you tell me who the Libertarian candidate is that you’re supporting or do you want to keep his numbers down around 0 by not giving ‘it’ any publicity?
You should publish this thesis of yours, “To Win the Presidency, you want to start with No One Supporting You” I’ll bet there are tens of people out there waiting to read that informed opinion.
@Redteam: EXACTLY–If more are against you than for you–you lose–you got it’
BTW I voted for the winner in the last 2 elections–my theory must work.
I also told you Notre Dame would have a better record than LSU—good news is LSU doesn’t have to repeat last year’s .loss to ND.
@Rich Wheeler:
Why are you jumping to the opinion that it will be a ‘he/she’, it might be an ‘it’. I’ve heard that Bruce/Caitlyn might be available.
So you are willing to vote for ‘an ‘it’ to be named later than for HRC’. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
@Redteam: Jenner is a registered Repub.–heard he’s a Trumpist like you.
@Rich Wheeler:
Are you willing to make a bet that the person that has won the nomination always went into the nominating process with more than 50%? I’d take the bet that in most conventions since 1900 that the nominee went to the convention with less than 50% support. Do you think Obama had more than 50% of pledged delegates prior to the 04 convention? Or that polls gave him more than 50% of the public vote in the presidential election, prior to the convention? Tell us what % of voters nationwide said they were going to vote for Obama as of December 07? Want to bet that number is over 50% ? I think you’d be blowing your bankroll if you did. Give us some more of your wild ass theories on who can win.
@Rich Wheeler:
He? you referred to it as a He? Don’t you toe the liberal line?
Just so you know, on Dec 10, 2007, Obozo was polling at 24% and Hillary at 43. According to your thesis, there is no way he could have won, so you must have thought you were voting for the loser. If you can extrapolate that Trump can’t get over 50% because he is polling at 30+ now, then surely you had to figure that there was no way Obozo could get to 50% from his lofty 24%. Right? That’s why I haven’t committed to who I’m voting for yet, because I still don’t know who the candidate will be. But I will vote for the Repub unless it’s Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Christie, or Jenner.
@Redteam:Exactly You’re beginning to get it—Obama never had 60%+ say they wouldn’t vote for him–Trump’s numbers are baked in–everyone knows him–for the same reason HRC is NOT a shoo in though she is the clear favorite
My “office pool” for Prez—to win 0dds 14 Dec–31 Dec
HRC 4-5 Fav
Rubio 5-2
Cruz 4-1
Trump 7-1
Carson 15-1
Sanders 30-1
Biden 35-1
Bush 40-1
Field 60-1
Jenner–Bruce 10.000-1 Caitlyn–100,000-1
Can only vote to win 2 min 10 max I’ll cover all-honor system
Odds will be adjusted as needed 1st of each month thru Nov.
@Rich Wheeler:
So you are sticking with referring to Jenner as ‘he’. Show me the poll that showed that over 60% said they would not vote for Trump under any circumstances. I don’t recall any poll asking that question and I suspect you pulled it out of your assless chaps.
Why don’t you trip on over to your local morgue and pick up your two neighbor terrorists and dispose of them properly.