President Ted Cruz?

[musiclady]

If I may expand on one of your points.

All of us here engage in rhetoric and argument in an effort to change minds. We argue using facts, humor, google, and in my case, using my unassailable logic.  ^-^

So why should one who has successfully been persuaded to our point of view—because we are so brilliant—be disparaged for changing their position?

Someone's mind has been changed! Each of us learn and grow. So positions change when there is more understanding about an issue. It's no sin. Scott Walker changed on immigration. Other politicians have done the same.

If you think about it, the term flip-flopper is a relatively new slur coined for one, John Kerry in 2004, not because he grew in one or two issues, but because he would constantly shape-shift on issue after issue every day depending on the audience or the intended effect on his election chances. That's not growing through knowledge or understanding – that's pandering.

In short, most of us as we go through life fine tune our opinions based on thoughtful consideration and study, and maybe if we're lucky we gain a greater understanding of the consequences a particular world view.

Now I'm just rambling. That's all.

Actually, you're not rambling at all!  You're expanding well on the point I was trying to make, and making some very good points as you did so.

I especially agree with your comments on the term 'flip-flopping.'  You are precisely right in that John Kerry was pandering and being dishonest when he supposedly 'voted for the war before I voted against it.' 

That's a VERY different thing than growing and changing because one has been persuaded.  (As a pro-lifer, I'll take ANYone's growth on that issue towards protecting life).

The fact that there is already an effort to disparage Walker as a 'flip-flopper' is disturbing to me.

To make the point again........... changing one's mind because one has been honestly persuaded is something that all thinking human beings do over the course of time, and should not be held against a candidate.  Especially this early in the game.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Someone's mind has been changed! Each of us learn and grow. So positions change when there is more understanding about an issue. It's no sin. Scott Walker changed on immigration. Other politicians have done the same.

If you think about it, the term flip-flopper is a relatively new slur coined for one, John Kerry in 2004, not because he grew in one or two issues, but because he would constantly shape-shift on issue after issue every day depending on the audience or the intended effect on his election chances. That's not growing through knowledge or understanding – that's pandering.

Are we certain Governor Walker is not pandering to the very vocal border zealots?  I'm pretty sure he is, and I expect his opinion to soften after the primaries.

I do not find that troubling.  A President represents all Americans.  A politician is a public servant and must reflect the views of his constituency to win elections.

I disagree with Governor Walker's advisors/handlers on the issue of illegal immigration, but fully expect President Walker to enforce our immigration laws just as vigorously as previous Presidents for the last 60 years.

[musiclady]

I really like him. I like Walker more.

Me too.

Right now, it seems to me that Walker has the best overall qualities to be our nominee.

Lots of time before the decision is made, but that's the way it looks to me.

Keep Cruz in the Senate.  He's a fighter, and that's a good quality.

[libertybele]

There is a stark difference between changing one's mind and turning a 360 on an important issue.  I can change my mind that I'd rather have provolone on my hamburger  than swiss; I'm still in agreement that I like hamburgers and my changing my mind doesn't affect anyone but me. On the other hand turning a 360 on issues like abortion, 2nd amendment, illegal immigration, free trade, etc.,, affect ALL Americans, not just a select few and they are life changing issues. 

I'm sorry, but when a person campaigning decides to change their mind on important issues I see it as self-serving and done strictly to get elected.   They lose credibility, integrity and trust worthiness. Case in point; if we take Charlie Crist of Florida for an example, he was a  Republican governor, then he changed his mind on some issues and ran as an Independent and lost, then this past election he changed his mind on issues again and ran as a Democrat.  Really?  Who the hell is he and does he even know what he stands for other than to be on the side that hopefully will garner him the most votes.  Sorry, doesn't fly with me and amazingly he narrowly lost.

I know a lot of you like Walker, but changing his mind just to get votes doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy.  Once he's elected it seems to me he could easily be swayed to change his mind again and could easily meander to the left if the "price" is right.

[flowers]

Me too.

Right now, it seems to me that Walker has the best overall qualities to be our nominee.

Lots of time before the decision is made, but that's the way it looks to me.

Keep Cruz in the Senate.  He's a fighter, and that's a good quality.

Walker does have the best overall qualities. It would be wonderful if he makes it to be our nominee!!!! Just wonderful.

[truth_seeker]

The claim is this: We must have a "true conservative" GOP candidate, or we are going to keep on loosing.

No proof is offered, just the claim. The reader is left to search for the rational of the claim. Possibilities include:

1. There is a mystery pool of voters, who only come out to vote for "true conservative" candidates.

2. That there is somehow a mechanism, whereby the primaries and caucuses can be overridden by again, a mysterious power in order to get a true conservative candidate.

The logic of both of these completely escapes me. But so does the inability of true conservatives to grasp the fraction "2/3" contained in the Constitution.

Altogether, I'm growing more and more convinced this faction of true conservatives are logic and math challenged. It seems they believe that if they merely emote strongly enough, the rest of the electorate will be drawn to their opinion.

At last count, the number of members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House was fewer than 25 percent of the total. (BTW I believe the Caucus may now be defunct.)

My thesis is this: No such hidden pool of voters even exists. Goldwater illustrates what happens to a fringe candidate from the right. Reagan was NOT such a fringe candidate. He was a two term Governor of our largest state. He tried very, very hard to have broad appeal, and he DID change his position on issues.

Ted Cruz is not Reagan. My offer is now 15 to 1, so you pay me $10 if Cruz does not win the nomination, and I pay you $150 if he does win.

Time for takers, not talkers.   

[aligncare]

There is a stark difference between changing one's mind and turning a 360 on an important issue.  I can change my mind that I'd rather have provolone on my hamburger  than swiss; I'm still in agreement that I like hamburgers and my changing my mind doesn't affect anyone but me. On the other hand turning a 360 on issues like abortion, 2nd amendment, illegal immigration, free trade, etc.,, affect ALL Americans, not just a select few and they are life changing issues. 

I'm sorry, but when a person campaigning decides to change their mind on important issues I see it as self-serving and done strictly to get elected.   They lose credibility, integrity and trust worthiness. Case in point; if we take Charlie Crist of Florida for an example, he was a  Republican governor, then he changed his mind on some issues and ran as an Independent and lost, then this past election he changed his mind on issues again and ran as a Democrat.  Really?  Who the hell is he and does he even know what he stands for other than to be on the side that hopefully will garner him the most votes.  Sorry, doesn't fly with me and amazingly he narrowly lost.

I know a lot of you like Walker, but changing his mind just to get votes doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy.  Once he's elected it seems to me he could easily be swayed to change his mind again and could easily meander to the left if the "price" is right.

(You mean to say 180°, not 360°)

Reagan said the democratic party left him. That was just an artful way of saying I changed my point of view.

If a politician says he has moved toward my position, I welcome it. Especially if he backs it up with concrete action. Reagan did.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

The claim is this: We must have a "true conservative" GOP candidate, or we are going to keep on loosing.

No proof is offered, just the claim. The reader is left to search for the rational of the claim. Possibilities include:

1. There is a mystery pool of voters, who only come out to vote for "true conservative" candidates.

2. That there is somehow a mechanism, whereby the primaries and caucuses can be overridden by again, a mysterious power in order to get a true conservative candidate.

The logic of both of these completely escapes me. But so does the inability of true conservatives to grasp the fraction "2/3" contained in the Constitution.

Altogether, I'm growing more and more convinced this faction of true conservatives are logic and math challenged. It seems they believe that if they merely emote strongly enough, the rest of the electorate will be drawn to their opinion.

At last count, the number of members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House was fewer than 25 percent of the total. (BTW I believe the Caucus may now be defunct.)

My thesis is this: No such hidden pool of voters even exists. Goldwater illustrates what happens to a fringe candidate from the right. Reagan was NOT such a fringe candidate. He was a two term Governor of our largest state. He tried very, very hard to have broad appeal, and he DID change his position on issues.

The Tea Party Caucus is defunct.  It has morphed into the Freedom Caucus...just as the Tea Party Caucus morphed from the Liberty Caucus. 

Facts, numbers, electability, reality...these are just words.  Unimportant when compared to righteousness and truth!  Real conservatives would rather lose, and complain about it...a lot, than compromise the conservative principles that make you one of "them", part of the problem, instead of a friend to freedom. 

Clearly you have not been shamed enough to embrace America's last and only hope for redemption. 

Ted Cruz is not Reagan. My offer is now 15 to 1, so you pay me $10 if Cruz does not win the nomination, and I pay you $150 if he does win.

Time for takers, not talkers.

Knock it up to 25 to 1 and I'll take $20 of that action.  It's much better that lottery odds.

Great post as usual truth_seeker

[Luis Gonzalez]

Back atcha, except let's insert "moderates and establishment, mainline GOPers" after "real conservatives" in your first sentence. It works both ways. Telling a conservative to shove something up his or her rear end, as Luis did above, does not help the cause, no matter how much broken glass one might crawl over to elect a Republican.

The terms "RINO" and "GOPe" when used by the people who used those terms, are meant to offend, denigrate and degrade the person that they are directed at. You can see her follow up post and see how I've "tarnished" the Republican Party via my support, and how I've contributed to the corruption in DC... as is the dolt had not been participating in the very same damned political system that we've all been participating in for decades.

Here's fair warning, to all posting here and specifically to those critical of my response.

No one gets to dictate to me how I will be allowed to respond when insulted. If you slap me without warning, you don't get to limit my response.

I will hit you over the head with a baseball bat.

The post was snide and meant to insult, and anyone who doesn't think so is a fool, a liar, or both. The poster admitted as much and I am no more apologetic that she is for my response.

I am absolutely sick of the moronic posts and the idiotic labels in this forum. We're in the fight of our lives in nearly every front, and all you're interested in is insulting and fighting those supposedly on our side.

What in the world is wrong with you people?

[Dexter]

I am absolutely sick of the moronic posts and the idiotic labels in this forum. We're in the fight of our lives in nearly every front, and all you're interested in is insulting and fighting those supposedly on our side.

What in the world is wrong with you people?

You're a smart guy Luis and what you say is true, but sometimes it is just up to you to be the even tempered adult. Flaming only escalates if you allow it to escalate. Let people that disagree with you badmouth you; it makes them look bad, not you. The intellectual that is completely comfortable with themselves and the strength of their position does not need to rely on cheap shots.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You're a smart guy Luis and what you say is true, but sometimes it is just up to you to be the even tempered adult. Flaming only escalates if you allow it to escalate. Let people that disagree with you badmouth you; it makes them look bad, not you. The intellectual that is completely comfortable with themselves and the strength of their position does not need to rely on cheap shots.

Why is it up to me to be the adult?

Is the other poster NOT an adult?

I can believe that.

Mencken... I'd say he had quite an intellect.

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

I'm there.

[mountaineer]

Well, I was hoping we could move beyond name-calling. 

[Dexter]

Why is it up to me to be the adult?

You can't count on other people to do it. If you don't do it there is a good chance nobody will, and then from that point nothing productive can happen.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, I was hoping we could move beyond name-calling. 

Then why don't you exhibit some intellectual honesty and address the source of the name calling rather than blaming me for my reaction to it?

[sinkspur]

Luis, my life and attitude has improved immensely now, on the rare occasions I visit this place, that I have blocked two posters.  I never see what they say and never interact with them, at all.

Ignore is a wonderful feature of this forum and it might be worth using it, even if the objects of your neglect are totally oblivious to it.  It's more about you than about them.

To hell with "them."

[truth_seeker]

Of course the best posture for mature individuals is to disagree without being disagreeable.

I use "mature" not terms of human birthdays, but in terms of political understanding, judgment, and realistic expectations.

Another useful attribute is self control. To wait awhile. Go back and look again. Don't just shoot venom back, as much as you feel like it.

True conservatives need the votes of those they would call names. That logical point, escapes them however.

Generally one tries to avoid alienating the very people they need help from.

But this takes us back to the seemingly rigid mentality of the static corps of true conservatives, who would rather spit venom, than smile and recruit more members and followers  Which just happens to be what Reagan did, but what the Tea Party failed to do.



   

[Dexter]

Luis, my life and attitude has improved immensely now, on the rare occasions I visit this place, that I have blocked two posters.  I never see what they say and never interact with them, at all.

Ignore is a wonderful feature of this forum and it might be worth using it, even if the objects of your neglect are totally oblivious to it.  It's more about you than about them.

To hell with "them."

The ignore function is also a good option. Nothing anybody says here is worth your frustration.

[mystery-ak]

Oceander went to great trouble installing the ignore feature...glad you like and use it sink..others here should do the same.


Personally I do not find the words RINO and GOPe an insult..it is more a description..especially GOPe..the old guard is how I define that term...as far as RINO...perfect example is my Sen Kirk.....I see no one on this forum, save one...lol that is even close to his political views.

I am getting sick and tired of every thread's topic turning into a fight over these terms...enough...I try to stay out of this shit and hope common courtesy prevails...but it just doesn't happen....this is why I am soo scared for 2016...two years out and I am not sure we can all come together for one candidate...

[Dexter]

Oceander went to great trouble installing the ignore feature...glad you like and use it sink..others here should do the same.


Personally I do not find the words RINO and GOPe an insult..it is more a description..especially GOPe..the old guard is how I define that term...as far as RINO...perfect example is my Sen Kirk.....I see no one on this forum, save one...lol that is even close to his political views.

I am getting sick and tired of every thread's topic turning into a fight over these terms...enough...I try to stay out of this shit and hope common courtesy prevails...but it just doesn't happen....this is why I am soo scared for 2016...two years out and I am not sure we can all come together for one candidate...

The context of a label often dictates how insulting it is. Those acronyms may not be inherently insulting, but that doesn't mean they can't be used in an insulting way.

[Bigun]

The context of a label often dictates how insulting it is. Those acronyms may not be inherently insulting, but that doesn't mean they can't be used in an insulting way.

So what? We don't have speech police here so get used to that!

[mystery-ak]

The context of a label often dictates how insulting it is. Those acronyms may not be inherently insulting, but that doesn't mean they can't be used in an insulting way.

True...but only if you personally/privately consider yourself a RINO or a member of the GOPe and were called out on it would it be insulting.

I am a conservative and I see post after post here on the forum insulting us...but I don't retaliate by telling a poster to shove it up their ass.

[Dexter]

So what? We don't have speech police here so get used to that!

We do have speech police; they're called mods. They exist to maintain civility. There is no reason a grown adult needs to present their arguments in a way that insults the person they disagree with. It's not constructive at all and only devalues the conversation.

[Bigun]

We do have speech police; they're called mods. They exist to maintain civility. There is no reason a grown adult needs to present their arguments in a way that insults the person they disagree with. It's not constructive at all and only devalues the conversation.

So what makes poster XXX stating his opinion that YYY is a RINO uncivil?

[truth_seeker]

Oceander went to great trouble installing the ignore feature...glad you like and use it sink..others here should do the same.


Personally I do not find the words RINO and GOPe an insult..it is more a description..especially GOPe..the old guard is how I define that term...as far as RINO...perfect example is my Sen Kirk.....I see no one on this forum, save one...lol that is even close to his political views.

I am getting sick and tired of every thread's topic turning into a fight over these terms...enough...I try to stay out of this shit and hope common courtesy prevails...but it just doesn't happen....this is why I am soo scared for 2016...two years out and I am not sure we can all come together for one candidate...

Does it occur to you that it is not the names themselves, but rather the propensity to do name calling at all?

Those doing the name calling are in the minority. They get nowhere alone. Common sense would argue for them to be diplomatic, mature and effective, and trying to grow their ranks and their appeal. Name calling is not appealing.

The Tea Party had one good run, in 2010. Then nada. They must be frustrated, by not coming out on top like they had hoped. The frustration is coming in this repetitive name calling, like venom.

But of course common sense, is uncommon. 

[Dexter]

So what make poster XXX stating his opinion that YYY is a RINO uncivil?

On this forum the acronym "RINO" has a very negative connotation. I don't believe anybody here considers themselves such, so being called one is easily seen as an insult. The purpose of calling somebody a RINO on a forum like this is to use a label to discredit what was said rather than addressing the substance of the post. In no way is it a necessary or relevant part of an argument. Labeling somebody in a derogatory way does nothing to discredit what they've said.