Donald Trump Hints Third-Party Run Is Still Possible

[Lakhota]

Despite pledging the opposite in September, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested Sunday that he wouldn't rule out a third-party run for president if he loses the Republican primary.

In a phone interview on ABC's "This Week," Trump dodged host George Stephanopoulos' inquiries into whether he would run as an independent now that a GOP operative has reportedly united efforts to edge Trump out of the race. According to a Wall Street Journal story Friday, "well-connected" members of the Republican establishment backing different candidates are joining forces to launch an anti-Trump campaign.

Trump, who signed a pledge in September promising to back the Republican presidential nominee and not to run as an independent if he doesn't win the nomination, avoided a yes-or-no answer when Stephanopoulos asked if the GOP operative is making him reconsider that pledge.

"Well, we'll see what happens. It will be very interesting. But I'm leading in every poll by a lot. It's not even a little bit anymore. It's a lot," he said before launching into details about what large crowds he draws.

When Stephanopoulos pressed him for a straight answer, Trump was slightly more forthcoming.

"We'll see what happens," Trump said. "I have to be treated fairly. You know when I did this I said I have to be treated fairly. If I’m treated fairly, I’m fine. All I want to do is [have] a level playing field."

Donald Trump Hints Third-Party Run Is Still Possible

Well, since the GOP leadership is currently planning how to oust him - I'd say he had better plan on that third-party run. This is just further proof that when Trump gives his word - it means nothing.

 

[Lakhota]

Adolf Trump could always run as a Nazi Party candidate.

 

[depotoo]

There is no hint. He stated this from the beginning. He was asked a question. He repeated what he has said from the beginning. Nothing new here.

 

[Arianrhod]

Dear Donny,

Thanks for undercutting the GOP candidate and handing the election to the Democrats. I figure while I'm in the Oval Office you and Bill will be out catting around again just like in the old days, but be safe, mmkay?

Love,

Hills

 

[washamericom]

Despite pledging the opposite in September, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested Sunday that he wouldn't rule out a third-party run for president if he loses the Republican primary.

In a phone interview on ABC's "This Week," Trump dodged host George Stephanopoulos' inquiries into whether he would run as an independent now that a GOP operative has reportedly united efforts to edge Trump out of the race. According to a Wall Street Journal story Friday, "well-connected" members of the Republican establishment backing different candidates are joining forces to launch an anti-Trump campaign.

Trump, who signed a pledge in September promising to back the Republican presidential nominee and not to run as an independent if he doesn't win the nomination, avoided a yes-or-no answer when Stephanopoulos asked if the GOP operative is making him reconsider that pledge.

"Well, we'll see what happens. It will be very interesting. But I'm leading in every poll by a lot. It's not even a little bit anymore. It's a lot," he said before launching into details about what large crowds he draws.

When Stephanopoulos pressed him for a straight answer, Trump was slightly more forthcoming.

"We'll see what happens," Trump said. "I have to be treated fairly. You know when I did this I said I have to be treated fairly. If I’m treated fairly, I’m fine. All I want to do is [have] a level playing field."

Donald Trump Hints Third-Party Run Is Still Possible

Well, since the GOP leadership is currently planning how to oust him - I'd say he had better plan on that third-party run. This is just further proof that when Trump gives his word - it means nothing.

Despite pledging the opposite in September, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested Sunday that he wouldn't rule out a third-party run for president if he loses the Republican primary.

In a phone interview on ABC's "This Week," Trump dodged host George Stephanopoulos' inquiries into whether he would run as an independent now that a GOP operative has reportedly united efforts to edge Trump out of the race. According to a Wall Street Journal story Friday, "well-connected" members of the Republican establishment backing different candidates are joining forces to launch an anti-Trump campaign.

Trump, who signed a pledge in September promising to back the Republican presidential nominee and not to run as an independent if he doesn't win the nomination, avoided a yes-or-no answer when Stephanopoulos asked if the GOP operative is making him reconsider that pledge.

"Well, we'll see what happens. It will be very interesting. But I'm leading in every poll by a lot. It's not even a little bit anymore. It's a lot," he said before launching into details about what large crowds he draws.

When Stephanopoulos pressed him for a straight answer, Trump was slightly more forthcoming.

"We'll see what happens," Trump said. "I have to be treated fairly. You know when I did this I said I have to be treated fairly. If I’m treated fairly, I’m fine. All I want to do is [have] a level playing field."

Donald Trump Hints Third-Party Run Is Still Possible

Well, since the GOP leadership is currently planning how to oust him - I'd say he had better plan on that third-party run. This is just further proof that when Trump gives his word - it means nothing.

if you insist upon stinking up the joint with your threads, why don't you at least chip in a few dollars to help keep this forum running, you cheap shit liberal jagoff, you probably still have your confirmation money.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What Lakooka doesn't grasp is if the GOP doesn't treat Trump fairly they broke the agreement first....duh

 

[pismoe]

da Trump is being targeted by money and an organization of 'gop' and rinos to take him down . That being the case I like Trumps threat to go third party no matter what he signed . After all , Trump said that he wouldn't go 3rd party if he was treated fair . Putting together a group of 'gop' rinos with money to take him down is NOT treating him fairly Lakhota !!

 

[SwimExpert]

What Lakooka doesn't grasp is if the GOP doesn't treat Trump fairly they broke the agreement first....duh

 

[Arianrhod]

What Lakooka doesn't grasp is if the GOP doesn't treat Trump fairly they broke the agreement first....duh

And if he goes rogue, he'll take the psycho GOP voters with him. If enough of you vote for him, it will undermine the GOP candidate and hand the election to the Democrats.

 

[pismoe]

good , give those moderate gop and rinos some thing to hate Arian !!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The dems sweep in a three party race.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Just for you Lakhota. I know how much you luv Romney

Romney Mercilessly Mocked About Dire Prediction In 2012 — It JUST Came True

Posted on November 22, 2015 by Sean Brown

• Share This
• Tweet This

During the 2012 elections, the liberal media did everything it could to discredit Republican nominee Mitt Romney so they could hand Barack Obama the election on a platter. At the time, Romney was mercilessly mocked for a claim he made about Mali, but boy was the media wrong, as usual.

Romney understood foreign policy and the true threats we face from radical Islam, unlike Obama, who had just about zero experience in world affairs and to this day refuses to even acknowledge radical Islam is a real thing. During the debates, Romney pointed to Mali as a growing terror hotbed and a place that America needed to be concerned with, but the lap-dog media laughed it off and mocked him for being concerned about the rise of Islamic terror.

Well, on Friday, his dire prediction came true. According to the Washington Examiner, after Romney reviewed the same intelligence reports that Obama saw, he warned of the growing threat of terror in the Middle East during the final debate in 2012, and the liberal media had a field day with him.

“Mali has been taken over, the northern part of Mali by al-Qaeda type individuals,” Romney said. “With Mali now having North Mali taken over by al-Qaeda, with Syria having [Bashar al-Assad] continuing to kill, to murder his own people, this is a region in tumult.”

For those unaware, on Friday, Islamic militants stormed a hotel in Mali and killed more than two dozen people, one of which was an American. Romney was right on this issue, just like so many others at the time, yet the media was unrelenting in their attacks. Below are some examples of their ignorance, try not to punch your monitor as you read them.

“I bet Romney couldn’t point to Mali on a map,” Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas said at the time on social media.


Longtime Clinton ally and CNN contributor Paul Begala added elsewhere, “POTUS has mentioned Israel at least three times Romney has cited Mali twice. Really.”

Vox.com’s Matt Yglesias joked in a note of his own, “Romney going for the vote of single-issue Mali voters. Obama for people who don’t like Osama bin Laden.”

He added later, “Teachers unions have thrown Northern Mali into chaos.”

Politico’s Roger Simon laid into Romney particularly hard, painting a deeply unflattering portrait of the former governor’s debate performance in an article titled “Obama Takes Romney to School.”

“And there is another problem with foreign policy, which Romney demonstrated when he twice mentioned Mali,” Simon wrote. “Mali? Is Romney not aware that in an oft-quoted Roper poll sponsored by the National Geographic Society in 2006, 75 percent of American young people couldn’t find Israel on a map — which might be understandable considering it’s pretty small — but also that 50 percent couldn’t find Ohio? Or New York?”

“And he wants people to know from Mali?” he asked again.

So, as we enter into the next presidential election, keep what happened to Romney in the back of your head. The media will stop at nothing to get their fellow liberal guy – or gal – into the White House, even if it means dismissing credible warnings from candidates.


Romney was right on so many issues, but he faced an uphill battle the entire way because uninformed, willfully ignorant reporters did everything they could to destroy his credibility. Their irresponsibility in 2012 may have gotten Obama re-elected, but it placed the entire world in danger by dismissing credible threats against us all.

 

[Lakhota]

Nazi Party Trump!

 

[pismoe]

Go Trump !!

 

[Avorysuds]

Adolf Trump could always run as a Nazi Party candidate.

As VP to Hillary, I agree... Thanks for making that point for us shit for brains.

Must be interesting to be you. You walk into any given room where people know you and you fully realize everyone knows you as that sad little hate filled political hack. It's bad when your humor is not even funny because you care more about insulating that being clever.

Bye!

 

[Avorysuds]

Nazi Party Trump!

Come on all you progressive science hating ignorant knuckle dragging hacks! Get on board!!! Trump is a NAZI!!!! YEAH!!

 

[Lakhota]

States with "open" primaries could be interesting for Trump. Last I checked there were about 19 states with "open" primaries. So, maybe Democrats in those states could help Hillary by voting for Trump.

Manipulation and dilution

Opponents of the open primary believe that the open primary leaves the party nominations vulnerable to manipulation and dilution. First, one party could organize its voters to vote in the other party's primary and choose the candidate that they most agree with or that they think their party could most easily defeat. Secondly, in the open primary moderates and independent voters can vote in either party. This occurrence may dilute the vote of a particular party and lead to a nominee who does not represent the views of his particular party.

For example, in the 2008 presidential primaries, exit polls say John McCain failed to win a single race among Republican voters, up to Super Tuesday, yet during that same period he went from also-ran to front runner, because most non-Republicans who crossed over voted for him. In New Hampshire, Mitt Romney won among registered Republicans, but John McCain won overall [1]. Likewise, in South Carolina, Mike Huckabee won among self-identified Republicans, but John McCain won the state [2].

Similarly, some Republican advocates called for Republicans to cross over and vote in the Democratic race, to help Hillary Clinton win, on the premise that Obama had a better chance of beating their candidate. The Rush Limbaugh Show's "Operation Chaos" is the best known of these movements.

More: Open primaries in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Avorysuds]

States with "open" primaries could be interesting for Trump. Last I checked there are 19 states with "open" primaries. So, maybe Democrats in those states could help Hillary by voting for Trump.

Hillary will never be President. No matter how bad you want it, she is almost less trusted than Obama and is one of the most disliked people in America. Hillary is like Cruz or Huck, the nutters like them but if they win the nomination most the party will vote for them because most the party was gonna vote for whoever was nominated. It's the independents that they lose, it's how much the other party hates them that they have an uphill battle against.

It's pretty basic stuff.

BTW, calling a white guy you don't like a Nazi is similar to calling a black person you don't like a ******. They are both "n" words" you might want to try and avoid... But you're a racist bigot so it's expected from you.

 

[Lakhota]

States with "open" primaries could be interesting for Trump. Last I checked there are 19 states with "open" primaries. So, maybe Democrats in those states could help Hillary by voting for Trump.

Hillary will never be President. No matter how bad you want it, she is almost less trusted than Obama and is one of the most disliked people in America. Hillary is like Cruz or Huck, the nutters like them but if they win the nomination most the party will vote for them because most the party was gonna vote for whoever was nominated. It's the independents that they lose, it's how much the other party hates them that they have an uphill battle against.

It's pretty basic stuff.

BTW, calling a white guy you don't like a Nazi is similar to calling a black person you don't like a ******. They are both "n" words" you might want to try and avoid... But you're a racist bigot so it's expected from you.

Yeah, but the major difference is that Trump's rhetoric sounds like Hitler.

 

[Vigilante]

The Donald will FUCK UP the Elitisrt Republicans...BUT think about this... Those mother fucking Republicans, the same ones in CONGRESS that took it UP THE ASS for Obuma, and his policies since sweeping into office in Jan. 2015 WANT THE FUCKING HILDEBEAST AS PRESIDENT if they can't get a "KASICK" or "RUBMEO" as their ELITIST candidate. A President Trump FUCKS BOTH PARTIES, as he's really an INDEPENDENT, with 90% CONSERVATIVE views. The ESTABLISHED DemocRATS and Repubickins will LOSE ALL THAT LOBBY MONEY, and WALL STREET CASH!!!!!

Trump would be the only one currently (perhaps with the exception of Ted Cruz, who, if anyone is watching has taken over SECOND PLACE in most NEW POLLS!!!) as the person establishment POLITICIANS love to hate! Let's just see how this rides out, as I'm POSITIVE Trump hasn't played ANY OF HIS TRUMP CARDS YET!!!!

Remember Churchill wasn't the PICK of the political class, BUT turned to be THE MAN NEEDED for the situation in WW II!