Santorum endorses Trump!

[Mesaclone]

Another step on the path to party unity. More and more principled conservatives are jumping aboard.

Santorum made clear the key issue.
Paraphrasing his appearance on Foxnews this past hour: If Hillary wins, we get 25 years of 5 leftwing justices rewriting the constitution. No self respecting conservative can allow that to happen, and any with a conscience must act to prevent it. And there is only one way now to do that, and that is to endorse and support Mr. Trump.

Santorum is a wise man, and understands this election isn't about his feelings...its about shaping the Supreme Court for the next 25-30 years.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yup!  Just heard it on Greta!   

[Right_in_Virginia]

I've always seen Santorum as weak.  He is basically good, but weak.  This proves it again.

Really?  I thought he was a strict conservative, especially on social issues.  Did I get that wrong?

[RetBobbyMI]

Santorum would endorse Donald Duck if he thought there was something in it for him.

[Oceander]

Santorum would endorse Donald Duck if he thought there was something in it for him.

Indeed

[Right_in_Virginia]

Santorum would endorse Donald Duck if he thought there was something in it for him.

Wow.  That's harsh.  It's getting awfully crowded under your bus, isn't it?

[skeeter]

Another step on the path to party unity. More and more principled conservatives are jumping aboard.

Santorum made clear the key issue.
Paraphrasing his appearance on Foxnews this past hour: If Hillary wins, we get 25 years of 5 leftwing justices rewriting the constitution. No self respecting conservative can allow that to happen, and any with a conscience must act to prevent it. And there is only one way now to do that, and that is to endorse and support Mr. Trump.

Santorum is a wise man, and understands this election isn't about his feelings...its about shaping the Supreme Court for the next 25-30 years.

Cool for Santorum. Did anyone bother to ask him what guarantee Trump gave him that he would go to the mat for another 'Scalia type' nominee?

Because I don't trust him to do that. Hearing Santorum's detailed rationale might help my lack of faith.

[Mechanicos]

Cool for Santorum. Did anyone bother to ask him what guarantee Trump gave him that he would go to the mat for another 'Scalia type' nominee?

Because I don't trust him to do that. Hearing Santorum's detailed rationale might help my lack of faith.

Little fact is that of the thousands of people who know Trump personally over the decades, in business hes known as a man of his word. He would have to be to get where hes at. Why is it the media and #neverTrump, and his opponents in the primary  are the only ones saying hes a slime ball and not the thousands who have known him over the years?

[INVAR]

Amazing to watch the paper-thin wet toilet paper strength of so many "principled Conservatives" as they bend the knee to Trump over fear, personal desire and ambition.

Voting for Trump out of fear of the Democrat is just practicing the same insanity that GOP voters have routinely engaged in since 1988.

Not gonna fly this time, no matter what political big-whig or personality says is their reason to abandon principles.

[Oceander]

Little fact is that of the thousands of people who know Trump personally over the decades, in business hes known as a man of his word. He would have to be to get where hes at. Why is it the media and #neverTrump, and his opponents in the primary  are the only ones saying hes a slime ball and not the thousands who have known him over the years?

Right.  How many of those investors who lost their shirts in the bankruptcies got what he promised them?

Donald himself has admitted he lies during negotiations, although he euphemised that as truthful hyperbole.  There is no evidence Trump is a "man of his word" when it comes to serious matters like being president.  The fact that he's honest with his gardener, for example, is ludicrously irrelevant. 

Speaking of which, how is it "keeping his word" when he promises a Wall and then changes that to a "virtual" wall.  Which is his word, the original wall, or the new "virtual" wall?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Cool for Santorum. Did anyone bother to ask him what guarantee Trump gave him that he would go to the mat for another 'Scalia type' nominee?

Because I don't trust him to do that. Hearing Santorum's detailed rationale might help my lack of faith.

I heard him on Greta's show.  It was pretty short and sweet .... He’s on the Train. Just wanted assurances that DJT would appoint conservative justices. He did got the assurances from Trump's list of eleven.  Santorum endorsed him.

[Mesaclone]

Cool for Santorum. Did anyone bother to ask him what guarantee Trump gave him that he would go to the mat for another 'Scalia type' nominee?

Because I don't trust him to do that. Hearing Santorum's detailed rationale might help my lack of faith.

What "guarantee" could any candidate give that gives surety?

Here's a guarantee...Hillary Clinton will 100% for sure, no doubt, not a chance of wavering...nominate hard core left wing judges. So even though you may not trust Donald, you CAN trust what Hillary will do.

Any GOP nominee, even Mr. Trump, will be bound to what he can get 50 GOP Senators to approve...and he still will need the popular support of GOP voters as that is the core of presidential authority.

[Oceander]

What "guarantee" could any candidate give that gives surety?

Here's a guarantee...Hillary Clinton will 100% for sure, no doubt, not a chance of wavering...nominate hard core left wing judges. So even though you may not trust Donald, you CAN trust what Hillary will do.

Any GOP nominee, even Mr. Trump, will be bound to what he can get 50 GOP Senators to approve...and he still will need the popular support of GOP voters as that is the core of presidential authority.

So will Donnie, if his past is to be believed.  And the fact that he is an orange-haired clone of Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of NYC and demonstrated liberal who was a republican for personal convenience only.  The only bad on hard core leftist judges will be the Senate, and that applies to both equally.

[Mesaclone]

Amazing to watch the paper-thin wet toilet paper strength of so many "principled Conservatives" as they bend the knee to Trump over fear, personal desire and ambition.

Voting for Trump out of fear of the Democrat is just practicing the same insanity that GOP voters have routinely engaged in since 1988.

Not gonna fly this time, no matter what political big-whig or personality says is their reason to abandon principles.

Here's where you're wrong. Its not fear. Its not for personal desire. Its not even for ambition in most cases.

Its plain old common sense. And a clear understanding that not supporting Trump means you are on the wrong side of letting Hillary put in place a Supreme Court that will rule from the extreme left for the next 30 years. Trump, on the other hand, will not. Its really that simple.

[RetBobbyMI]

I guess he thinks HE has a chance at some inside perky job, since others are running away from the fly infested Trump Train.

[Mesaclone]

So will Donnie, if his past is to be believed.  And the fact that he is an orange-haired clone of Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of NYC and demonstrated liberal who was a republican for personal convenience only.  The only bad on hard core leftist judges will be the Senate, and that applies to both equally.

No, you don't get to draw equivalencies on this one as cover. Trump has laid out who he will appoint, and Hillary is equally clear. Politically, both are now tied to these positions as they both must have the support of the parties to operate in the White House. So there is a choice, a very clear one. With Hillary you will get extreme liberals, with Trump you will get the type of people on his list of 11 justices. His past is what it is, but he is bound by the political ties of party and nomination...no president is ever free of that stricture, its a tether that always limits their freedom of action. 

[Oceander]

Here's where you're wrong. Its not fear. Its not for personal desire. Its not even for ambition in most cases.

Its plain old common sense. And a clear understanding that not supporting Trump means you are on the wrong side of letting Hillary put in place a Supreme Court that will rule from the extreme left for the next 30 years. Trump, on the other hand, will not. Its really that simple.

Donald Trump presents just as much a risk of liberal justices as does Clinton.  Trump is an orange-haired clone of NYC ex mayor Bloomberg who was a flaming nanny-state liberal for all that he was a "republican" and so Trump will be as liberal as Bloomberg who is as liberal as Clinton. 

The only difference being that Trump would be "our" liberal, meaning that it would be a lot harder for the republicans in the Senate to deny him his liberal nominees for the court than it would be to deny Clinton hers.

[jmyrlefuller]

Little fact is that of the thousands of people who know Trump personally over the decades, in business hes known as a man of his word. He would have to be to get where hes at. Why is it the media and #neverTrump, and his opponents in the primary  are the only ones saying hes a slime ball and not the thousands who have known him over the years?

Was Bernie Madoff a man of his word? Of course not. Swindlers have an easier time getting rich than the honest, all while their marks think they're the one getting the good deal. Your premise is false.

[jmyrlefuller]

As for Santorum, he's just as zealous as Trump, except his weapon is a bible instead of a wad of dough.

[Mesaclone]

I guess he thinks HE has a chance at some inside perky job, since others are running away from the fly infested Trump Train.

Actually, the holdouts are getting few and far between. You are now part of the Romney-Bush clique that is ever-shrinking and petulant. The vast majority of the party is moving strongly to support Trump and his numbers with Republicans are moving into the 80's. And will continue to grow. That's because people of principle also have common sense and understand you don't get EVERYTHING you want in a candidate...the ability to compromise, within reason, is a clear sign of intellect AND ethics.

[Oceander]

No, you don't get to draw equivalencies on this one as cover. Trump has laid out who he will appoint, and Hillary is equally clear. Politically, both are now tied to these positions as they both must have the support of the parties to operate in the White House. So there is a choice, a very clear one. With Hillary you will get extreme liberals, with Trump you will get the type of people on his list of 11 justices. His past is what it is, but he is bound by the political ties of party and nomination...no president is ever free of that stricture, its a tether that always limits their freedom of action. 

I don't get?  Who made you God?  I "get" to draw the equivalence because it is clearly there.  I am simply fascinated by the childish faith people put in the words - just words, no actions - of a man who admits to lying in negotiations to get what he wants and who has already walked back from several of his promises.  And even if his words can be believed, he has already expressed a preference for single-payer nationalized health care, i.e., Obamacare, and leftist nostrums like raising the minimum wage. 

Those equivalences are there and they are real.  I won't deny you the privilege of self-delusion - you "get" to be as deluded as you wish - but I will continue to point out the truth. 

[skeeter]

Little fact is that of the thousands of people who know Trump personally over the decades, in business hes known as a man of his word. He would have to be to get where hes at. Why is it the media and #neverTrump, and his opponents in the primary  are the only ones saying hes a slime ball and not the thousands who have known him over the years?

I can't help but think that thats what those who know Cruz said about him.

[INVAR]

Here's where you're wrong. Its not fear. Its not for personal desire. Its not even for ambition in most cases.

Its plain old common sense.

That's what people without principles tell themselves.

And a clear understanding that not supporting Trump means you are on the wrong side of letting Hillary put in place a Supreme Court that will rule from the extreme left for the next 30 years. Trump, on the other hand, will not. Its really that simple.

First of all, you have absolutely no proof of that outside of a list his team put together that Trump himself said a short time later did not contain the name of whom he may actually offer up.

Secondly - I'm not voting for a potential Mussolini out of fears of whom Hildabeast will nominate to SCOTUS.  Won't a Senate have to confirm her picks?  Or is that now out the window by your Republican leadership too?  What's the point of a Senate then?  Might as well abolish it, which I have read some idiots actually suggest.

That so many of you accept the perversion of the Constitution to enable 9 justices in black robes to decide the abolition of your inalienable rights by playing that game of stacking the courts to rule in your favor, is your problem and explains why it is so many now view the presidency as a monarchy/Dictatorship too.

I don't accept your arguments or the premise of them.

Obama has been stacking the Federal Courts with radical Leftist ideologues at breakneck pace and speed and your party has been totally silent on the matter.

[Mechanicos]

Right.  How many of those investors who lost their shirts in the bankruptcies got what he promised them?

Donald himself has admitted he lies during negotiations, although he euphemised that as truthful hyperbole.  There is no evidence Trump is a "man of his word" when it comes to serious matters like being president.  The fact that he's honest with his gardener, for example, is ludicrously irrelevant. 

Speaking of which, how is it "keeping his word" when he promises a Wall and then changes that to a "virtual" wall.  Which is his word, the original wall, or the new "virtual" wall?

Such a load of garbage.
4 bankruptcies out of over 400 businesses and all Chapter 11 during an economic downturn. Thats 1 Percent and in a time when many others were going under.
And Trump never said virtual wall. A person the liberal/#neverTrump clan called a surrogate said it. It has no connection to Trumps campaign and its not his word. Try again.

[Mesaclone]

As for Santorum, he's just as zealous as Trump, except his weapon is a bible instead of a wad of dough.

So everyone's a huckster. Guys like Rick Santorum, Gov Huckabee, Lindsay Graham, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, O'Steen, Franklin Graham, the NRA, etcetera...all these conservatives are now rotten scumbuckets by your line of thought. Your list is going to be insanely long by the time of the convention, aint' it.