Top Republicans believe Paul Ryan will be nominee

[mystery-ak]

You're dead wrong. Reread the thread in question. It was Relic who brought up politics, when it had nothing to do with the thread at hand. He also told the new poster that unless she supported Trump she wouldn't be welcome, which is a lie.

I stand corrected...I can admit when I am wrong.

..but this part of my post still stands

Please enough is enough....stop with the Trumpettes are idiots posts...just because you haven't singled out a Trump supporter here it is still bordering on a personal attack and I am tired of it.

posts like this does add to the tone of the site and it seems to dominate almost every thread...

[Dexter]

Here's what I think is the reality of this, as it concerns this forum. This little piece of the internet has absolutely no impact on America's political course, (sorry Myst). It just doesn't, it's too small. So, what we're really talking about is how welcoming do you want this place to be? Do you want to check in and see 3 or 4 threads with nothing but insults flying, day after day? It gets tiresome.

Exactly. Some people seem to think this forum is the front line for the fight for conservatism. Their outrage isn't helping conservatism; it's poisoning the atmosphere in this small community.

[Dexter]

You're dead wrong. Reread the thread in question. It was Relic who brought up politics, when it had nothing to do with the thread at hand. He also told the new poster that unless she supported Trump she wouldn't be welcome, which is a lie.

After the dust settles and the punches have been thrown it really doesn't matter who started what. Everybody is guilty at that point because everybody involved could have decided to rise above it.

[Relic]

Exactly. Some people seem to think this forum is the front line for the fight for conservatism. Their outrage isn't helping conservatism; it's poisoning the atmosphere in this small community.

 

[Sanguine]

Here's my disconnect:  I understand the animus toward the Beltway Republican elite.  I do.  It's been frustrating to watch a punk like Obama seemingly run roughshod over our Constitution and Republican Congress without any seeming push-back from the impotent Boehner/McConnell cabal.

I understand the visceral desire to punish those DC elites, to disempower their influence and standing and positions of power going forward.

But, here's what I don't understand:  Given the desire to "shake things up" and support someone who has fought the GOPe and been a victim of their fecklessness and schemes -  why in the world wouldn't Conservatives support Ted Cruz? 

Why Trump?  He's never been anything but a venal insider buying political favor and cutting deals.  His entire career and wealth are a product of his political cronyism.   He's the embodiment of the corrupt elite bagman his supporters are supposedly looking to punish within the GOPe.   And, he's been doing it with liberal Democrats!

Why Trump and not Cruz?   I have not observed a single one of his supporters make a cogent case - on this presumably Conservative board - that Trump is a more faithful "outsider" than the guy who was hated by his wimpy colleagues for standing up to Obamacare and the corrupt Omnibus bills and general Obama Administration misdeeds.

I don't get it.

I think part of the problem is being "for" something.  I think there are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, have a hard time committing to someone/something/a particular course of action.  Easier to be against stuff. 

Rush Limbaugh for instance.  This is a crucial election and one in which you would think that fence-sitting would not be an acceptable position.  But, Rush is taking great pains to not be for someone instead of using his influence for good.  (Ha!  I'm betting some of you here thought I meant you.)

Now's not the time for fence-sitting and attacking each other.

[Relic]

I think part of the problem is being "for" something.  I think there are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, have a hard time committing to someone/something/a particular course of action.  Easier to be against stuff. 

Rush Limbaugh for instance.  This is a crucial election and one in which you would think that fence-sitting would not be an acceptable position.  But, Rush is taking great pains to not be for someone instead of using his influence for good.  (Ha!  I'm betting some of you here thought I meant you.)

Now's not the time for fence-sitting and attacking each other.

That's your opinion, and it's reasonable.

Just a couple of things to be aware of about Rush Limbaugh:

First, and most importantly, he is an entertainer. He's not a leader, he's not a politician, he is there to entertain so that he can make money. He must be doing something right, because he makes a boatload of money.

Second, it has been Limbaugh's history to not endorse anyone during the primary. Probably to avoid ticking anyone off, and keep contacts and listeners.

I don't give too much weight to what Limbaugh says for those reasons.

[ArneFufkin]

There was a debate where Trump "stood up" to the media, some punks from CNN or some such. Suddenly all the GOP candidates grew a spine and even Christie stood up to the media. I think this endeared a lot of people towards Trump.

Which he flushed down the drain, subsequently.

I understood the allure last summer when he really hit the scene.   He gave voice to countless people who had been silenced about their concerns regarding the unchecked invasion of illegals and looming Islamist terror for fear of being branded a racist.   Trump was above political correctness, and there was a very satisfying emotional element to his approach and his complete disdain for media and special interest smears.

But, as the campaign wore on and all of his vulgarity, insults and boorishness escalated and his lack of awareness of basic policy prescriptions emerged it baffled me how he's retained that level of fiercely loyal support from his followers.   At some point doesn't it matter what someone says, and not how they say it?   Do folks really think a Presidential campaign - in this critical time for this Republic's very survival - should resemble a raucous Jerry Springer or Morton Downey Jr. fiasco?

[Sanguine]

That's your opinion, and it's reasonable.

Just a couple of things to be aware of about Rush Limbaugh:

First, and most importantly, he is an entertainer. He's not a leader, he's not a politician, he is there to entertain so that he can make money. He must be doing something right, because he makes a boatload of money.

Second, it has been Limbaugh's history to not endorse anyone during the primary. Probably to avoid ticking anyone off, and keep contacts and listeners.

I don't give too much weight to what Limbaugh says for those reasons.

Relic, I was only using Rush as a general example.  The main thrust of my comment was about those who are more than happy to jump in and bash others for their choice of candidates but who are reluctant to commit to a candidate themselves.  People who are just against things, and not for anything.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That's your opinion, and it's reasonable.

Just a couple of things to be aware of about Rush Limbaugh:

First, and most importantly, he is an entertainer. He's not a leader, he's not a politician, he is there to entertain so that he can make money. He must be doing something right, because he makes a boatload of money.

Second, it has been Limbaugh's history to not endorse anyone during the primary. Probably to avoid ticking anyone off, and keep contacts and listeners.

I don't give too much weight to what Limbaugh says for those reasons.

I hear Rush's "anti-establishment" rhetoric being parroted though by Trump supporters: GOP-e, RINOs, Establishment, etc.

So I think for many he is way more than an entertainment figure. Which is frustrating.

[Bigun]

Here's my disconnect:  I understand the animus toward the Beltway Republican elite.  I do.  It's been frustrating to watch a punk like Obama seemingly run roughshod over our Constitution and Republican Congress without any seeming push-back from the impotent Boehner/McConnell cabal.

I understand the visceral desire to punish those DC elites, to disempower their influence and standing and positions of power going forward.

But, here's what I don't understand:  Given the desire to "shake things up" and support someone who has fought the GOPe and been a victim of their fecklessness and schemes -  why in the world wouldn't Conservatives support Ted Cruz? 

Why Trump?  He's never been anything but a venal insider buying political favor and cutting deals.  His entire career and wealth are a product of his political cronyism.   He's the embodiment of the corrupt elite bagman his supporters are supposedly looking to punish within the GOPe.   And, he's been doing it with liberal Democrats!

Why Trump and not Cruz?   I have not observed a single one of his supporters make a cogent case - on this presumably Conservative board - that Trump is a more faithful "outsider" than the guy who was hated by his wimpy colleagues for standing up to Obamacare and the corrupt Omnibus bills and general Obama Administration misdeeds.

I don't get it.

Well said Arnie!  Speaks for me perfectly! 

[ABX]

I've noticed a significant decline in participation.

Actually, we are having record numbers. We are getting more traffic per month now than we used to get in an entire year not long ago.