Donald Trump: I Will End Gun-Free Zones for Schools, Military Bases

On one hand, I’m delighted that there’s a presidential candidate who comes right out and tells it like it is re: “gun-free zones.” In Mr. Trump’s words, they’re “bait.” On the other hand, too bad it’s Donald Trump doing the telling. Lest we forget, The Donald supported an assault weapons ban and funded Hillary Clinton and other anti-gun rights Democrats (same thing, I know). Equally, this statement glosses over the fact the President of the United States can’t . . .

repeal the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 with the stroke of a pen. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works. OK, yes, President Trump could change military policy on personal firearms by fiat. But deep-sixing federal law on the prohibition of firearms at public schools would require an act of Congress. Which is not a “day one” deal by any stretch of the imagination.

Question: does Trump know the Constitutional limits on the executive branch’s power and not care because he wants to get elected? Or does he not know, not care and is willing to say anything to get elected? At the risk of alienating Trump supporters — who champion the most rabidly pro-gun pol on the stump — be careful what you wish for.

comments

  1. avatar HandyDan says:

    I didn’t think the limits applied anymore. Obama is sure doing his best to push them as far as they can go.

    1. avatar Five says:

      Well, by the Obama method, he can just order all the federal agencies to stop enforcing the law, then direct the Justice Department to sue any state that attempt to enforce the federal law on their own. That is exactly what Obama has done and it’s worked for him.

      I’m not saying it is good, it’s not, rule of law vs rule by a man, but it is the precedent set by Obama and it’ll continue until it is stopped.

    2. avatar Chrispy says:

      I believe the President can skirt around the limits of his executive powers by getting a group of congressmen in a room and saying “draft a bill to do x, get the votes in congress, and I’ll sign it.”

      1. avatar WRH says:

        What? Politics involves a lot of back-room deals? Shocking! Has anyone alerted the media about this?

    3. avatar thx855 says:

      blah, blah, blah until I’m elected, then…business as usual. Collectivism marches in only one direction, although it speaks from both of its faces…and butt.

  2. avatar jwm says:

    Constitutional limits? 8 years with barry in office and 30 years in the PRK and you talk of constitutional limits? Let’s let the mad dog and his bad hair loose in DC. It might be fun to watch.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      It went out the window with the first Roosevelt and his new interpretation of the Constitution, where gov’t has the power to do anything not expressly prohibited in Constitution, instead of only having the power expressly written within the Constitution.

      1. avatar Five says:

        I’d love to see a couple more like Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ” Let’s let the mad dog and his bad hair loose in DC. It might be fun to watch.”

      My inner kid would really like that.

      The (somewhat) adult part of me questions Trump’s temperament in dealing with real problems, as an example, if Trump wins ‘The Trump House’, Putin *will* test him, like invading a small country, to see how he reacts.

      Trump’s success has largely happened as a result of him being an ‘Army of One’, so to speak. Complex issues require an ability to work with others.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        I wanted him and Joe Biden to go at in in a televised debate, degrading to the point of both whipping it out to see who’s is bigger before the camera cuts the feed. I feel jilted by Biden’s absence, and therefore irritated by the Don’s continued insistence on running.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        So, Geoff, you somehow have the impression that The Donald rolled his sleeves up and built all those skyscrapers all by himself? Switched himself into a real estate salesman and hawked space to leasers? Do you believe he flies his own B757 and helicopter? No one else on either side has any experience working with others, whatsoever, compared to Trump. The closest is Fiorina. Carson worked one case at a time, I imagine, as opposed to building a neurosurgeon empire, and the rest, R and D both, are lifelong politicians, have accomplished exactly nothing in their lives. I’m sure there is plenty to criticize, but that ain’t it. Have you been watching political ads?

  3. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    About Time! Not a Trump fan but….

  4. avatar BDub says:

    If the “candidate” was really “telling it like it is”, he’d just say “I will tell you whatever it takes to get elected, I will take exact opposite position of whatever my opponent says, by default, because I have absolutely nothing to loose by promising you anything you want. If whatever comes out of my mouth happens to be true at any given moment, great, but isn’t absolutely necessary and will ultimately have no bearing on anything I do.”

  5. avatar John L. says:

    It’s by no means just Trump making promises on Congress’s behalf. All the candidates for at least as long as I’ve been old enough to vote, have been making bold promises they had no way of keeping without Congress’s action or at least assent.

    Let’s face it, the Presidency is as powerful an office as it is these days, mostly because Congress has ceded authority to it in fact if not in law.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      That, JL, is an accurate summary.

      And frankly, I find the presumption on this site that Trump is somehow naive or simple…to be absurd. Anyone who has negotiate with Fed and local agencies, banks, investors, and contractors in order to build a large structure knows it is very complex. Coming out of such deals with your shirt still on your back is not an easy result to achieve.

      When it comes to proof of competence I see much more evidence for Trump’s ability than Cruz’s or Rubio’s, the later two being, experience-wise, born yesterday. Trump is, actually, a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, relatively. He is, therefore, electable.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “a fiscal conservative and a social moderate”

        “PRECISELY* what I want to vote for. And I hope against hope that would be the end of moral majority/Christian coalition/purveyors of fanatical intolerance in mindless worship of invisible space aliens, forever. I’m pretty sure that is where the “He’s not a “real” conservative” BS comes from, though of course nobody wishes to explain what a “real” conservative would look like, simultaneously exposing themselves as nuts.

        Cut spending, slash the size of government, repeal half the laws in the country in the first year, then look around, and stay the HELL out of my life.

  6. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    F*ck it!

    It ain’t getting any better with Hilary or the Bern at the helm.

    It’s all just polishing the brass on the Titanic, anyways; it’s all doing down, man.

    At least I can get a few good belly laughs before the economy collapses and American’s 12 trillion dollar debt is called in and we have to welcome our new Chinese overlords.

    1. avatar Chrispy says:

      12? Closing in on 19 right now

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Apologies. 19 trillion.

        1. avatar BDub says:

          Yeah, dats yooge…yooge, I tell ya.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        1 trillion here, 1 trillion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

      3. avatar ropingdown says:

        12 is about right for external debt. 19 is about right counting debts to the social security “trust fund.”

        As for the 12, about 6 is domestically owned and about 6 foreign. I feel confident we can buy back the 6 held abroad…offering them buckets of fresh hundred dollar bills in exchange. We never agreed to pay in any other form.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I dunno, these numbers are beyond my comprehension. However, I have heard from people I consider knowledgeable that when unfunded liabilities are tossed in the mix, we get something stupid like 350 trillion in debt.

    2. avatar Ozzallos says:

      Oh, you mean that country whose economy just took a dump?

    3. avatar jwm says:

      The chinese don’t want our problems. They got enough of their own.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        I bet our resources look pretty tempting, though.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          What I see the Chinese sporting wood over is us balkanizing ourselves. Breaking up into city states that leave the world stage clear for the chinese to be the only super power.

          They have free run of the world and we make ourselves irrelevent on the world stage. Win win for them.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          Resources in US? Interesting to China? Seriously?

          They have a much bigger pile of resources much closer to them, in Siberia and Russian Far East, where they have a land border, some historical basis for any claims, and where they have been sending settlers – I mean, business immigrants – for two decades now.

          http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82969

        3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Some of y’all are taking my comments WAY too seriously.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          We hang on your every word, ROHC. 🙂

  7. avatar Jody says:

    Appointing Supreme court judges that stand for the constitution would go a long way to back up his bluster

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      You do realize that practically everyone he’s been affiliated with his entire life is a staunch NYC democrat, right? Who the hell does he know that cares about the constitution enough to follow that line even when he can no longer be “FIRED!”

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        Carl Icahn comes to mind.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You know, a Democrat who is a fiscal conservative could win my vote, too. I’ve never SEEN one, but I assume it would be possible.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> a Democrat who is a fiscal conservative could win my vote, too. I’ve never SEEN one, but I assume it would be possible.

          http://www.bluedogdems.com/content/about

  8. avatar TrumpCard says:

    At least he’s got the balls to do it and take the liberali media head on doing it.

  9. avatar barnbwt says:

    So, is he removing restrictions on his hotels, yet? That’s a day -500 deal.

    Does Cruz or Trump or Rubio or Carson or Bush likely have a better grasp of the clearly intended limits of executive power under the constitution?

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    But deep-sixing federal law on the prohibition of firearms at public schools would require an act of Congress.

    You mean like deep-sixing federal law on immigration? No, that would be wrong. King Hussein would never do that. Nor would any POTUS.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      I’m repeatedly surprised when people on this blog forget the guns….that a law without guns to enforce judgments, or guns to enforce appearance in court, are meaningless laws. I suppose we will soon see, for example, how meaningful the federal laws governing the protection of secrets are. The obvious wanton violations by HRC seem to occasion little concern by her supporters. This attests to just how fuzzy American views on “equal justice under law” have become…or depending on your views….how fuzzy they remain.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, just saw on the news, an email just released in which HRC directed a state department staffer to delete the classified markings on a message and send it along unsecured. Folks, that is prison. For years. I held a Top Secret clearance for a decade, trust me, I know. I do not see how DOJ could possibly ignore this, given the usual rate of progress in these things I’d expect her arrest before the Dem convention, preparing for trial around election time. Are even Dems depraved enough to vote for free stuff to be delivered by a president convicted of treason?

  11. avatar Joe R. says:

    A businessman making huge donations to political hacks [a/k/a your demanding a-hole neighbors needing jobs] does not surprise me, nor give me qualms.

    Jackson, Farahkan, Sharpton shake people down and don’t even pay the taxes and they can’t even GET elected.

    What bothers me is that there’s people out there putting “Feel the Bern” bumper stickers on painted sections of their cars.

  12. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    The man is a master of negotiations. He plays 3 dimensional chess, everyone else is playing checkers.

    He is already serving his first term as president, and he has shaped the legislative agenda before being elected.

    The liberals and cucks need to just surrender. He has already won.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      So brilliant half his proposals are off-the-cuff baloney that changes daily, and the other half pure “baffling with bullshit?” Not talking about his policy memos written by others; I’m talking about what he has actually articulated himself. Don has been brilliant in certain areas; forcing candidates to take firm stances on topics that would otherwise be left alone, and showing the GOP establishment for the paper tiger it has become since W retired. For that we should be very grateful, as he has essentially assumed much of the role abdicated by the press.

      But the man is no politician. He is no team player, and our federal system is specifically designed to reward team players, and thwart lone strongmen seeking to go it alone and take all the marbles (like Obama fancies himself being). Absent is any sort of coalition built around reinforcing his policy proposals, any role for the vanquished after the battle, or frankly anything larger than himself & this campaign.

      Cruz has at least been reaching out to various conservative groups, senate, gubernatorial, and even competing candidates from time to time, seeking to form a coalition that will ultimately replace the current ossified establishment systems. He has long been working with leading fiscal/social conservative groups in coordinating his policy proposals, and has suggested his administration would be willing to make use of the talents of more than several of the other candidates (which reflects true long range strategy, since it is both good politics and good policy to make use of their connections and experience). It’s not enough to identify what is wrong and tear it down, though these are both necessary to solving problems; it is also needed for someone capable of forming something afterward.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Are you too young to remember Reagan? He took on the establishment turds you describe by calling a press conference and explaining to the American people what he wanted done, why, and who was standing in the way. A few hundred million phone calls later, the establishment decided he had a good idea. Only took a couple times, before the “good ol’ boy” network learned that if they screwed with him, their chance of reelection went down, and suddenly we had a functioning government again. After Nixon-Ford-Carter, I did not believe it was possible that quickly. When Reagan was inaugurated, I believed that America’s time in the sun was over. If Carter had been reelected, it would have been.

  13. avatar Achmed says:

    That is the problem with Trump. Either he knows the outlandish things he says are legally impossible and just believes his supporters are clueless – although all politicians do that from time to time. Or he knows they are legally impossible and thinks the executive really should have that kind of power (i.e.: he really is a “great man” politician and actually does want to be a little Hitler). The first one is much more likely – neither is good of course.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Not sure what you mean by “legally”. If prohibited by law, the law can be changed in a week. If prohibited by the constitution, it will take longer, but not as long as a presidential term, to change the constitution. So, what exactly do you mean by “impossible”, “illegal”, etc? ALL the rules can be changed.

  14. avatar Avenger says:

    Obama once stated that he would uphold the Constitution and not do “what Bush does” before he got elected:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc

    Presidential candidates (or any politicians for that fact) will say whatever it takes, lie to everyone, just to get elected. Once they are elected, they will TURN ON YOU faster than you can blink. If you truly believe Trump has your best interests in mind, know this: he wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. He does not care about your human rights, the Constitution, saving face, or YOU. He only cares about the big chair, and the power it has.

    You cannot change the system by changing one person in it. You have to change the system by changing the system. Take the power of the government away. If you believe Trump will uphold his promises during his campaign, you are delusional.

    My advise: turn off mainstream media, and focus on your life and what actually impacts you. What can you influence and what ACTUALLY influences you? That is what matters.

    1. avatar Greg says:

      @Avenger,
      You said, “You have to change the system by changing the system. Take the power of the government away. ”

      Okay, how do you suggest we do that?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Sounds like he thinks we should all just stay home election day, and celebrate Hillary’s victory.

    2. avatar nyet says:

      “know this: he wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. ”

      whatever you say buddy, guess he just rolled past the mugger in NYC beating a man with a baseball bat. but the facts seem to point in an direction contrary to yours

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/report-donald-trump-stopped-baseball-bat-beating-on-new-york-city-street-in-1991/

  15. avatar Jason says:

    If you’d met me 10 years ago Robert you’d think I was “rabidly” anti-gun as well. Amazingly it is possible for people to change.

    Personally I would much rather see Cruz in the WH but, frankly, I’ll take anyone over Hillary. I would even take Bernie Sanders, avowed socialist over Hillary.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Change in thinking is possible, but without backing by action, there’s a lack of credibility.

      We’re left comparing his gun views from the 90s, when nothing was on the line, to his gun views today, with the White House up for grabs. Hmmm…..

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      You’ right, but you’re also not running for president…

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        You’re right, too, but I am a GOP primary voter, which is what matters.

    3. avatar int19h says:

      >> I would even take Bernie Sanders, avowed socialist over Hillary.

      I’m genuinely curious – why?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I agree with him, for this reason. Sanders makes no bones about what he wants to do, absolutely transparent and apparently a pretty darn honest man, problem is . All his ideas would go exactly nowhere with a Republican congress, unless we reasoned together and reached an acceptable compromise. Hillary would continue to lie, hide, do unscrupulous deals, possibly start working assassinations of SCOTUS conservatives to advance her moron agenda, I can’t even imagine how much damage she could do. For Bernie to convert us to a socialist country would take not just laws, but amendments, which will never happen.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Wait, I’m confused. I understand the honesty and openness part, but not ideological alignment. I mean, Sanders is pretty far left. He’s definitely not small government, and he’s definitely not conservative. So you’re also left-wing? Or do you agree with some of his ideas (that you consider more important) but not others?

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          No, what I’m saying is that he would be open and aboveboard in his attempts to change our entire system, unlike Osama or Hillary. Since I assume a Republican Congress, he will not be able to effect such changes even if elected. When he calls for a letter writing campaign ala Reagan, all the letters would come to him, telling him to drop it. I would prefer that to Hillary, with coaching from Barry and Bill on how to lie, cheat, and steal while blaming it all on someone else (is W still bleeding?), to the extent that we wouldn’t even know what had happened for 10 years after she left office. I think Hillary would be FAR worse for the country than Sanders. Neither would be an emperor, but she would try to be, and think she was.

  16. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Not only does he neither know nor care about checks and balances, Congressional authority, or the outer ambit of presidential power, he neither knows nor cares about states rights.

    Remember, this is the same guy applying for the job of having his finger on the button, but who was excruciatingly flummoxed in the last debate for not knowing what the nuclear triad was.

    So-called gun free schools are governed by state law, not federal. Or maybe he thinks he’ll negotiate with or arm twist the states into agreement/compliance?

    Doesn’t matter. Either way he’s a know-nothing carnival barker in a $5,000 suit who’ll do or say anything to get elected, then do whatever he and his giant ego damn well please. Dump Trump. Choose Cruz!

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Technically, federal arm-twist through block grants is exactly how the feds enforce GFSZs. Everything else about Trump is dead-on, though, and why businessmen (especially of his ilk) make poor presidents. Cruz isn’t the best statesman we’ve ever had, but he’s the closest thing running at the moment, and has a proven track record (also not perfect, but only visible as such because it is so consistent). Trump won’t even take down the signs in his own hotels while spouting this idiocy; he won’t get jack done as president, “master negotiating skills” or otherwise, because he can’t fire the courts or congress (and will reap the whirlwind of a lamp post if he tries) and they’ll eventually stop taking his calls.

    2. avatar JQP says:

      Yeah, I’m sure Mr. Empty Suit Hussein was real war college material when he started his campaign.

      The jargon is what the Joint Chiefs are for.

      “Mr. Trump, which toy is your favorite? Would you rather play with subs, bombers, or ICBMs?”

      WGAF?

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        MIRVs, throw weight and telemetry are bits of nuclear jargon out of the Pentagon. “Nuclear triad” and rudimentary familiarity with the tradeoffs it entails can be had within about an hour of watching the History Channel. With nuclear Iran and NK out there, it’s a relevant question.

        Trump has no alibi for ignorance. He’s even less prepared than Gov. Rick “Ooops!” Perry. Trump has no business even being on the stage.

        As for Obozo, no argument: least qualified president ever.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          It did not seem to me that Trump was ignorant of the nuclear triad. It appeared rather that he had no idea which leg of the tripod was the most valuable. That was the question. I bet you aren’t sure, either. The Air Force thinks we only need rockets and bombers. The Navy believes that ultimately the nuclear sub fleet can best be relied upon. I think the Army believes tactical nukes will suffice for the conflicts that actually occur.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Each has its weaknesses.

          The Walker spy scandal showed treason can break assumed secured communication. The Chinese or Russians could come up with a clever hack to track our ballistic subs. Air defenses could be developed to deal with inbound bombers. Ground-penetrating nukes can be hidden in a large field of inbound MIRV decoys and knock out the missile silos.

          I’m becoming convinced the Russians have the right idea by making their land-based missiles mobile on trucks. Nothing we have can be considered absolutely secure.

          All of it should be as state-of-the-art as possible…

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “Nuclear triad” and rudimentary familiarity with the tradeoffs it entails can be had within about an hour of watching the History Channel”

          J-H, that’s just manure. I was *part* of the nuclear triad, after 10 years in the military, before I ever heard of it. And why would you look for it on the History channel if you don’t already know what it is? Elected in Nov, the next Prez, whoever it is, from whichever party, will spend a whole lot of time being briefed with clearance however high there is, by a whole lot of different departments, for nearly 3 months before taking office, that happens every time a new guy arrives. Regardless of how long you (or any candidate) has watched History channel, you don’t know squat compared to what the elected prez will know before he takes office for the first time. I’d expect that congresscritters will be briefing him on process and personnel during that time, probably the first 2 months, followed by him beginning to brief them about his goals as inauguration gets closer. I wouldn’t GAS if he had no idea where the White House was, as far as a criteria for electing him goes, I think you are basing your objections on silly things. He has proven capable of carrying people along with him when he decides to do something, whether that is to build a skyscraper or run a country. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a government that works together to get something accomplished, for a change? I am not yet convinced how many R candidates could accomplish that, but I am convinced Trump is one.

          Main reason I work so hard to explain this to you is that I will NOT be voting in primaries, expect to at least try to vote for whoever you and other pri voters present me with as a candidate. I can tell you now, if it is either Trump or Cruz, he’ll have my vote, but I suspect I’ll have to hold my nose if it’s Cruz. Others, including Rubio, not too sure yet, but that’s what the fall campaign is for.

  17. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Yeah I’m for Ted but anyTHING repub is preferable to the D critters…no Bernie the commie either. I don’t trust ole’ donnie either-but I guess his sons and WE would hold his feet to the fire…

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      It’s actually pretty awesome how the ‘worst’ we could possibly do at this point is Bush or Rubio; a far cry from guys like Romney, McCain, W Bush, HW Bush, or Reagan (don’t know or care about Dole’s stance on guns). There may be hope yet for the party (and gun rights) if the system is not yet so rigged that a person as universally loathed as Hillary can be fraud-ed into office

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Boy, that’s the truth.

  18. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I’m guessing he’s just spouting off. His handlers will tell him what he can and can’t do after he’s elected.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Handlers? You think Trump has handlers?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Trump is smart enough to have campaign advisers.

        If he’s smart enough to listen to them is undetermined…

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’d guess he will allow them to advise, then make up his own mind. Obama is a puppet for Valerie Jarrett (born in Iran), does not have a mind to make up. Dems hope Hillary will be a puppet for Bill. With Trump, if an advisor insists he do something a certain way, the job will be open one minute later. We will know who to credit or blame, no hiding. I would also guess that reelection will not even be a concern for Trump, but will be of overarching importance for literally everyone else, just like Obama.

  19. avatar SurfGW says:

    First, Trump has to get elected.

    Second, he has to remember this promise.

    Third, he has to get it past Congress.

    I have serious doubts about all three.

  20. avatar jwm says:

    Trumps gonna get elected. People are tired of the usual bullshit from the pols. They’re ready for some unusual bullshit.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      I endorse this message….

    2. avatar int19h says:

      What makes you believe that “some unusual bullshit” will be Trump, and not, say, Sanders?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Dems have had their chance for a while. Everything is about guns for them. We have a whole lot of problems as a nation and all they can do is yell “GUNS”. They get spanked good and hard this cycle and maybe they’ll find some moderation.

        Trump isn’t the answer either. But he’s what we’ll get. It might be time for a good enema in the body politic.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> They get spanked good and hard this cycle

          >> Trump isn’t the answer either. But he’s what we’ll get.

          Have you seen the polls? Or state by state accounting? Do I need to go over how many swing states Dems need vs how many Reps need to win?

          Someone will get spanked good for sure. But it won’t be Dems.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Do you understand how little attention is paid to Independents during primaries? Here comes a surprise!

        3. avatar int19h says:

          If Independents really prove to be the deciding factor in this election, it will be Trump vs Sanders, rather than Trump vs Hillary. In which case I would bet on Sanders, because unlike Trump, he can attract a lot of Independent vote without alienating too many moderates (at least enough that they wouldn’t vote for him, even if they have to hold their nose doing so).

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “If Independents really prove to be the deciding factor in this election, it will be Trump vs Sanders, rather than Trump vs Hillary.”

          Either you got lost in your thoughts, there, or you don’t understand how the system works, at all. Independents (in most states) cannot vote in Dem or Rep primaries, therefore will have absolutely no effect on whether it is Trump vs Clinton or whatever, their effect will be to decide which of the final party candidates will win the actual election, as opposed to the primaries. Which is what I was saying, you will not see where the independents are going until the election in Nov. And current Republican fanatics have been driving Independents away screaming for decades, and I don’t think Trump will. If he gets a good bunch, he will hand Hillary or Bernie, either one, a ticket to a vacation, probably with a large margin, which would alter politics for the better for decades. The Independents have been a steadily increasing percentage of the country for decades, now, and if all swing one way or the other, the way they swing will be the next president regardless of how many of the candidate’s own party turn out.

          The way you stated that, it sounded like you thought the primaries WERE the election.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          “Independent” is just a self-identification. There’s nothing preventing those people to register for either party (or even both, in those states that permit it). And then some states have open primaries.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Hint; How many decades has Bernie been in congress? Has he ever held a job?

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> Hint; How many decades has Bernie been in congress? Has he ever held a job?

          I’m not sure why that would be relevant. To me, the more telling number is his approval rating as a Senator (as in, how many people say “yes” when asked “is this guy doing a good job representing my interests”). Which is 83% – significantly more than have voted for him in the first place (71%). This is a very good sign in terms of actually getting things done.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          83% of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of people in Vermont? You think that means squat in Peoria? And the question concerned usual bullshit vs unusual bullshit, I was pointing out that Sanders is just another career politician, has never generated a job for anyone, why would we think his bullshit would be any different than Chuck Schumer’s, for example? Or hadn’t you noticed that Schumer, and Hillary for that matter, are ALSO Socialists? Trump has never held elective office, expecting something different wouldn’t be completely crazy.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          >> I was pointing out that Sanders is just another career politician

          That’s the thing – he’s a career politician, sure, but he’s not just “another one”. He’s actually good at it, in a sense they’re supposed to be good, as opposed to being good at lining their pockets and sucking up to their donors. It’s ridiculous that this is actually such a rare thing, but it is what it is.

  21. avatar CLarson says:

    I like Cruz but will take Trump over the rest of the Republican field. If we get 10% percent of what Trump promises it will be better than what Republicans have done in the last 2 decades. I’ll will gladly take my chances with him over the guaranteed crap sandwich the others offer.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      With the dems you get no bread with that crap sandwich.

  22. avatar Ragnar says:

    What, Trump can’t use his pen and abrogate federal law like Obama?

  23. avatar All_is_fair says:

    There is all kinds of Dept of Educ money that flows to states depending if they do things that the Fed gov wants them to do (like Title9 Bullsheeet)

    Possible that he could direct DOE to change things that in order to get that lovely “free” federal enticements that they would have to make their school non gun free.

    Sneaky bastard way to do it but the Left does it on a myriad array of their pet leftist wack ideas. The problem is that the DOE is stuffed with people that are anti-gun and they will try to throw roadblocks and slow walk it. However that could maybe be solved if he can figure out a way to say “you’re fired” to a sheetload of DOE employees. It would be fun to watch him try.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out…because I don’t want ass-prints on my new door!”

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I would hope he will direct DOE to pack their bags and go home.

  24. avatar MiniMe says:

    While I can understand why so many people back this guy for the POTUS candidacy, I still can’t bring myself to trust him.

    Nope. Don’t trust him at all.

    1. avatar anomad101 says:

      Which viper do you trust?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Don’t trust him about what? You think he’s lying about being rich? WTF are you talking about? Are you accusing him of something? Why do we *care* whether you “trust” him?

  25. avatar Anonymous says:

    If the republicans keep their ratio as is in the senate and house – you bet he will repeal it with the stroke of a pen.

  26. avatar randall223 says:

    That’s the question I want answered.

    Is Trump just saying whatever he knows people want to hear or is he delusional enough to believe this tripe he spits?

    1. avatar int19h says:

      You don’t rake in billions of dollars by being delusional. So there’s your answer.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Or by making promises you can’t keep. We seem to have a lot of people here that think they’re just about to make 10 billion dollars, any minute, since they are so smart and Trump knows nothing, is a bozo. Talk about keyboard commandos.

  27. avatar tmm says:

    What a waste of air

  28. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Or does he not know, not care and is willing to say anything to get elected?
    You mean like about all politicians.

  29. avatar glenux says:

    To tell yo the truth I don’t know if Trump know that he just can’t repeal the Gun Free Schools Act, but
    I don’t know that most people think he can’t.

    I don’t think that most people realize the limitations on executive powers the president has.

    So I think he is just telling the Gun Rights supporters to win votes.

    But what else has he or any of the other candidates said that shows they
    have an understanding of the People’s right to keep and bear arms and the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution?

  30. avatar geoffb5 says:

    Trump’s statement is looked at here.

    http://bearingarms.com/trump-promises-make-ending-gun-free-zones-priority-elected/

    Short version, military base gun-free-zones gone by EO first day. Others by legislation.

  31. avatar int19h says:

    While Trump is preaching to the choir from the pulpit, the actually interesting proposals go unnoticed in the background as usual.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/greg-abbott-texas-rubio-constitutional-convention/

  32. avatar blhjr says:

    ..our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government..E.G.White,this statement was written over 100 yrs ago! As I see it,that,s happening now!

  33. avatar anomad101 says:

    Obama bypasses congress, but Trump, or anybody else, would have to go thru congress? Of course they should, but obama has set a precedent for ruling alone, at least cracked the wall to be able to. No one has made a serious attempt at stopping him. It is a step towards making the exe orders of future “presidents” the law of the land. There is that inconvenient Constitutional thing that does not provide for a US dictator, but there has been talk of it being outdated and time to retire it in favor of rule by personal agenda. That won’t be mentioned during election year, of course. Republicans are lining up to throw the election to hillary, just as they threw the two to obama. Altho Mitt had them worried.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email