Donors ask GOP consulting firm to research independent presidential bid

[Carling]

That's right, you are not allowed to speak if you dare threaten to stop The Man.

Good little Trump supporter! Now have your biscuit.

Anybody who would vote for HRC over any GOP candidate has no business being on a conservative site, and I have to assume they are trolling us.

[DCPatriot]

I truly believe that Trump is in the race to bring down Conservatism, not just Cruz.

SOCONS with moral superiority complexes perhaps.     

[truth_seeker]

That's right, you are not allowed to speak if you dare threaten to stop The Man.

Good little Trump supporter! Now have your biscuit.

Apparently you intend to vote for Hillary then, too???

[musiclady]

SOCONS with moral superiority complexes perhaps.     

No.  He's trying to bring down conservatism, and the values of our Constitution and Founders.

He proves it with nearly every word that comes out of his mouth.

[musiclady]

Apparently you intend to vote for Hillary then, too???

What a bogus argument.

Has your sudden support of Trump negatively affected your normal ability to reason, t_s?

[DCPatriot]

No.  He's trying to bring down conservatism, and the values of our Constitution and Founders.

He proves it with nearly every word that comes out of his mouth.

LOL!   I'm voting for a leader who can take us out of this politically correct environment.   Not an altar boy or cub scout.

[Carling]

What a bogus argument.

Has your sudden support of Trump negatively affected your normal ability to reason, t_s?

Jazzhead said he would vote for HRC over Trump.  Myrle stood up for him.  A logical question for Myrle is whether he too would vote for HRC.

Are we not allowed to comment on actual posts anymore?  Your response seemed out of line to me.

[musiclady]

Jazzhead said he would vote for HRC over Trump.  Myrle stood up for him. Are we not allowed to comment on actual posts anymore?

You're "allowed" to do whatever you jolly well please, Carling.   I'll even let you start screaming again that I'm a "liar" if that's what you feel like doing.  I pretty much don't care what you think or say about anything any more after several episodes of that silliness.


btw, Longiron has also stated that he'd vote for Hillary, but I don't suppose that bothers you a bit.

[musiclady]

LOL!   I'm voting for a leader who can take us out of this politically correct environment.   Not an altar boy or cub scout.

Of course you're setting up a false dichotomy, DC.  You know that the only alternatives aren't "altar boy," "cub scout," and despicable person.

All four other candidates left are in between.  Only Trump is on the extreme end of characterlessness....

[Carling]

You're "allowed" to do whatever you jolly well please, Carling.   I'll even let you start screaming again that I'm a "liar" if that's what you feel like doing.  I pretty much don't care what you think or say about anything any more after several episodes of that silliness.


btw, Longiron has also stated that he'd vote for Hillary, but I don't suppose that bothers you a bit.

I didn't see it, and you were either repeatedly lying about Trump wanting single-payer or you refused to educate yourself on his broader plan when I called you out on it.  Which is it?

[musiclady]

I didn't see it, and you were either repeatedly lying about Trump wanting single-payer or you refused to educate yourself on his broader plan.  Which is it?

You just can't help yourself, can you??  You're obsessed. 

I actually feel sorry for you, if it's that important to you to call a person a liar because they don't agree with your assessment of what a forked-tongue politician like Trump actually said.

MANY other people supported the things I said (and gave plenty of evidence), but for some bizarre reason, you decided to target me.

I think it's pathetic, that it's SO important to you to besmirch my good name when you know absolutely that I don't lie about anything.

Here.  Or anywhere.

(Now I'm not going to get into this grade school spitting match with you, so maybe you should cease and desist before you lose emotional control again.  I'm not going to respond to idiocy, even if you hold your breath and turn blue).

[Jazzhead]

Jazzhead said he would vote for HRC over Trump.  Myrle stood up for him.  A logical question for Myrle is whether he too would vote for HRC.

Are we not allowed to comment on actual posts anymore?  Your response seemed out of line to me.

Let me be clear, Carling.   I will not vote to elect Hillary Clinton.  I will, however, vote to defeat Trump. 

I will not spit the bit and stay home, and fail to vote to defeat Trump.   

 

[Carling]

You just can't help yourself, can you??  You're obsessed. 

I actually feel sorry for you, if it's that important to you to call a person a liar because they don't agree with your assessment of what a forked-tongue politician like Trump actually said.

MANY other people supported the things I said (and gave plenty of evidence), but for some bizarre reason, you decided to target me.

I think it's pathetic, that it's SO important to you to besmirch my good name when you know absolutely that I don't lie about anything.

Here.  Or anywhere.

(Now I'm not going to get into this grade school spitting match with you, so maybe you should cease and desist before you lose emotional control again.  I'm not going to respond to idiocy, even if you hold your breath and turn blue).

So you were lying, then. Thanks for clearing that up.  If you don't want to be Ed a liar, don't lie.  Hell I've seen you and others demean and degrade Trump supporters here in the most vile ways imaginable, including calling them "evil" and saying they lack morality.  If I were you I'd be ashamed of my behavior toward your fellow posters here, but instead you pull the sinkspur card and play the victim.

Very sad to see.

[DCPatriot]

Let me be clear, Carling.   I will not vote to elect Hillary Clinton.  I will, however, vote to defeat Trump. 

I will not spit the bit and stay home, and fail to vote to defeat Trump.

So...let's be clear.

If it's Trump vs. Clinton in November, are you physically going to vote for Trump?

Yes or No.

[Mod1]

Wow, it is like Deja Vu all over again!  Imagine that.

[EasyAce]

I'm voting for a leader who can take us out of this politically correct environment.

A leader (I use the term very loosely) who cannot comprehend the Constitution, never mind
construe it reasonably, is going to take us out of anything but that environment:

Trump, the Anti-Constitutional Authoritarian — Liberty Lovers, Beware
By Charles C.W. Cooke

What has become of the “constitutional conservatives”? For seven years now, President Obama’s
opponents have shouted righteously outside the White House. This president, they have argued,
does not care about the law; his Democratic party, they have charged, has adopted a “will to power”
approach to politics; and the media . . . well, the media has been complicit in the ruse.

Offenses both small and great have been catalogued in horror. Obama has not only
undermined the separation of powers, but he has arrested inconvenient video-makers,
just like a fascist. He has not only unilaterally rewritten congressional law, but he has
attempted to circumvent the right to bear arms, just as Adolf Hitler might. He has not
only claimed powers that the Constitution clearly does not give him, but he has laid out
plans to kill Americans without due process on their own soil. No departure has been
too slight to invite protest. As Edmund Burke put it all those years ago, conservatives
in the Obama years have not always waited for despotism before making their appeals,
preferring instead to “augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of
tyranny in every tainted breeze.”

From my perspective, this development has been a salutary one. A free people should
be reflexively distrustful of those who hold power, and they should be wedded to the
idea that the law serves as the best bulwark against caprice. Human liberty is protected
most effectively when its beneficiaries learn to separate their preferred outcomes from
their preferred means and to elevate their future safety over their present expedience.
We do not enjoy a codified constitution in this country because the founding generation
was fearful of General Washington or John Adams, but because it was fearful of men
in the future whose names and characters they did not — and would not — know. That
the Right has demonstrated a flair for consistent dissent has been a good and welcome
thing. That it has looked beyond the immediate and ushered in a host of public officials
whose guiding lights lie within the nation’s supreme law is even better.

But now, the big question: How long can this trend last? Once upon a time, Obama
himself was a great champion of the Constitution, while his opponents were dastardly
cynics who would do anything in pursuit of a quick win. Alas, once he got into power,
he dispensed with all that. Why? Because he was ultimately far more interested in
power than in principle. A few admirable figures aside, it turned out that Obama’s acolytes
were not really worried that George W. Bush was damaging the country’s established
legal settlement. They were worried that he was winning. Will conservatives take the
same road once Obama is gone?

Or, perhaps, before he is gone? Indeed, if the current Republican front-runner is any
indication of things to come, large swathes of the party have already abandoned their
talk of “constitutional conservatism” and “limited government” and embraced a flat-
out authoritarianism, at least as preached by “The Donald.” Whatever else he might
be, the idea of Trump as a paladin of civil liberties should make one howl with terrible
laughter. Since he announced his candidacy, Trump has threatened to ignore those
who are carping about free speech and

shut down parts of the Internet; he has
promised to summarily deport those who are suspected of being illegal immigrants,
without due process of law; he has endorsed extensive campaign-finance regulations
that fly directly in the face of the First Amendment; he has vowed to restrict the
Second Amendment rights of those on the terror watch list, again without due
process; he has praised Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens,
suggested that natural-born Americans can be deported against their will, and
proposed that American Muslims be barred from reentering the country; he has
described as “wonderful” a Supreme Court ruling that obliterated the “public use”
limitations on the invocation of eminent domain; and he has refused to rule out
registering Americans on the basis of their faith. Worse still, he has responded
to the criticism that these positions have generated by channeling his inner
Nancy Pelosi: “Are you serious?”

And yet, despite all of these transgressions, 30 percent of GOP-primary voters
still list him as their top pick. This is an unmitigated disgrace. For nearly a
decade now, figures from all across the Right have been doing the vital intellectual
spadework that is prerequisite to the Constitution’s revival. In the courts and in
Congress, conservatives have made real progress in insisting that the law must
sit at the center of our national political life. In the media, we have introduced
“should we?” as the reliable bedfellow of “can we?” In the electorate writ large,
activists and leaders have strived to ensure that “Is that constitutional?” is a
litmus test for both policy and personnel. Who could have guessed that their
efforts would be thrown to the curb the moment a cut-rate Roderick Spode
began to bark and snarl at the fairgrounds?

---National Review, 8 December 2015.

[EC]

Wheeee - Trump invades another totally bleep unrelated thread!

I'm gonna write a thread and call it Poland so he can invade that too. 

[EdinVA]

Wheeee - Trump invades another totally bleep unrelated thread!

I'm gonna write a thread and call it Poland so he can invade that too. 

That's great.... 

[Scottftlc]

Wheeee - Trump invades another totally bleep unrelated thread!

I'm gonna write a thread and call it Poland so he can invade that too. 

I have a rule for myself for at least the next month (or until the nomination is decided and over, whichever comes last) to stay away from any and all threads about Trump...and I'm going to add Rubio and Cruz to that.  Just look at all the threads and comments, essentially the same thing over and over again ad nauseum...and I do mean nausea literally.  But you can hardly do it at all, if there was a thread about a recipe for Buffalo Chicken, it would turn into a bash fest.

[EC]

 

[DCPatriot]

( Re: Donors ask GOP consulting firm to research independent presidential bid )

Trump is germane to the title because it's why they're meeting.   

[Wingnut]

Wheeee - Trump invades another totally bleep unrelated thread!

 

Trumps evil oozes over America like maple syrup.

[Mod1]

Stop calling other posters liars. Enough.

[EC]

( Re: Donors ask GOP consulting firm to research independent presidential bid )

Trump is germane to the title because it's why they're meeting.   

So which is he - a donor, GOP, or making an independant presidential bid.

Seriously, there can be political threads without Trump. It's driving me nuts. I keep expecting to go look in world news and find his hairpiece being debated in a thread on Boko Haram, or a thread on a new Archaeology discovery devolving into a Trump colonoscopy report.

[R4 TrumPence]

Wheeee - Trump invades another totally bleep unrelated thread!

I'm gonna write a thread and call it Poland so he can invade that too.