Cruz: Those who bolstered Trump 'will bear that responsibility going forward'

[libertybele]

Thats about the polar opposite of conservative. But it is the definition of idiocy. By no definition is voting for an R because they are an R conservative. It's textbook Democrat plantation politics. I have an excusemaker on another thread right now trying to pass off conservatism as whatever someone wants it to be.

Amazing how people will just rewrite reality to conform with their desires.

If conservatism is whatever someone wants it to be I wonder what liberalism is?

[Norm Lenhart]

If conservatism is whatever someone wants it to be I wonder what liberalism is?

Those people would likely not tell you the answer they believe. That being "The correct path to victory". Because for someone to think the way they do, there aren't a lot of options. And none of the options align remotely with conservatism.

In the last week I have had multiple 'conservatives tell me/read here that they are sick of SoCons and Bible Thumpers, that they do not know whether or not if a gay guy that brags about seducing his priest is a conservative or not, that conservatism has no definition, That principle is dying out and the refuge of the old, that a man caught daily in lie after lie is a conservative and more.

Lewis Carrol had these people in mind, I'm sure. Every one of them has a fit if you tell them they arent conservative. With those beliefs no less.

[RoosGirl]

, that they do not know whether or not if a gay guy that brags about seducing his priest is a conservative or not,

What??

[Norm Lenhart]

What??

Milo Yanopoulous. Alt Right wonderboy. In a Youtube interview with "Sargon of Akad". He was rather proud of his accomplishment bragging it was where he got his oral sex skills.

THAT is conservative? At least one of your fellows here on TBR 'doesn't know".

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That kind of behavior to me is not conservative. I don't think any reasonable definition could conclude that it so. That being said, I don't know any of Milo's opinions on other topics. I know of his more outrageous behavior and his work on college campuses. I know that he is strong anti-PC and anti-SJW and those are two forces looking to radically change society along their own preferred lines. SO in that way, he is conservative.

Another point is that he is British, so their version of conservatism may mean different things to them.

So that is my answer Norm. Now my question to you is, who defines what conservatism is?

[Norm Lenhart]

That kind of behavior to me is not conservative. I don't think any reasonable definition could conclude that it so. That being said, I don't know any of Milo's opinions on other topics. I know of his more outrageous behavior and his work on college campuses. I know that he is strong anti-PC and anti-SJW and those are two forces looking to radically change society along their own preferred lines. SO in that way, he is conservative.

Another point is that he is British, so their version of conservatism may mean different things to them.

So that is my answer Norm. Now my question to you is, who defines what conservatism is?

How odd. An hour ago you had no idea. And suddenly you do? Imagine that.

What is conservatism? Conservatism is the Constitution. It is the Bill of tights. It is the Golden Rule.

Conservatism is principle based on the above and not tossed aside to 'win' with the want of the moment. Conservatism is belief there is a right and there is a wrong and the courage to stand up for the right.  Conservatism is the truth in all it's ugly glory and not some cockeyed fantasy of a living document.

Conservatism is Reagan's shining City on the Hill. It is honesty with yourself and your dealings with your fellow man.

If you don't like that definition, I don't care. Because its what guided every conservative leader since America's founding. And if you skip the C/BOR, it guided every conservative throughout the civilization of man.

No. Conservative isn't whatever the hell you think it is on waking up and changing with the wind. People that try to split hairs and go off on tangents about true Scottsman are no more conservative than Ted Kennedy.

Simple math. And since IIRC you are the guy that has a history of voting for some very non conservative types, you have less place than anyone to try redefining what it is.

Thats 'Conservatism.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

How odd. An hour ago you had no idea. And suddenly you do? Imagine that.

I never said I had no idea. I have my own opinion of what it is, and so do you. Period. To me your just another garden variety screamer on this forum. Your opinion ain't worth a bucket of warm piss. Nor is mine for that matter. 

[Norm Lenhart]

I never said I had no idea. I have my own opinion of what it is, and so do you. Period. To me your just another garden variety screamer on this forum. Your opinion ain't worth a bucket of warm piss. Nor is mine for that matter. 

You are half right. Yours isn't.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You are half right. Yours isn't.

No really. Everyone has their own opinion. And they all stink like the old joke goes. But we all have our own view of what "conservatism" is.

[Norm Lenhart]

I never said I had no idea. I have my own opinion of what it is, and so do you. Period. To me your just another garden variety screamer on this forum. Your opinion ain't worth a bucket of warm piss. Nor is mine for that matter. 

Actually, you said


Quote from: Norm Lenhart on Today at 09:05:59 AM

    "You first. You got one hanging several posts above.

    Actually there's no point. You think you are so it's true. We all have our own truths afterall...isn't that the leftist way?"


I answered your question about Milo. To paraphrase my answer is I don't know.

Now answer my question.

[Norm Lenhart]

No really. Everyone has their own opinion. And they all stink like the old joke goes. But we all have our own view of what "conservatism" is.

Actually you have your differing opinion. Conservatives are pretty much aligned with what I mentioned above.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Actually you have your differing opinion. Conservatives are pretty much aligned with what I mentioned above.

Not really. Many different "flavors" of conservatism. Paleo, neo, social conservatives, etc etc.

Stupid to think your own narrow definition is universal.

[geronl]

Trump making references to his penis at a nationally televised debate and making pee-pee jokes at rallies is just another of the many signs that this man should not be President.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump making references to his penis at a nationally televised debate and making pee-pee jokes at rallies is just another of the many signs that this man should not be President.

Can't believe @mystery-ak censored that post. It was pretty funny. Trump rampant idiocy must be displayed.

[Norm Lenhart]

Not really. Many different "flavors" of conservatism. Paleo, neo, social conservatives, etc etc.

Stupid to think your own narrow definition is universal.

And thats why your opinion isn't worth listening to. All flavors of conservatism share the common beliefs above. It's what makes them part of conservatism. You don't share them? Take a wild guess where you fit in -outside- that sphere.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

And thats why your opinion isn't worth listening to. All flavors of conservatism share the common beliefs above.

These "flavors" have actually wildly opposing viewpoints on many issues actually. For example neo and paleo flavors are directly opposed on many many issues.

[RoosGirl]

Milo Yanopoulous. Alt Right wonderboy. In a Youtube interview with "Sargon of Akad". He was rather proud of his accomplishment bragging it was where he got his oral sex skills.

THAT is conservative? At least one of your fellows here on TBR 'doesn't know".

I had no idea who Milo was prior to the De Paul invasion of BLM.  I watched the whole video of him prior to the invasion and decided he was a foul-mouthed moron and could not figure out why the republican club would invite him to speak there.  I figured "token gay who says some things they agree with" regarding the plague of PC.  Even I have a liberal friend who hates all the PC nonsense.  But conservative?  No.  The info you provided just confirms my opinion of him.

[Sanguine]

Personal attacks aren't cool, regardless of how hard y'all yank each other's chains. 

[truth_seeker]

With Trump's latest bombastic statement accusing American soldiers of stealing money for the Iraqi reconstruction, I think Cruz's statement bears repeating;" those who bolstered Trump WILL bear that responsibility going forward". When Trump is elected at the convention ... THEY ARE responsible.  IF Trump is elected POTUS and continues us on our current path of destruction, THEY ARE responsible.

Equipment is stolen from our military. Often with inside help. Here is the first google page of such stories. Before Trump came into the picture.

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=us+military+equipment+thefts&oq=us+military+equipment+thefts&gs_l=hp.3...51524128.51535613.0.51536498.30.19.0.11.11.0.361.2756.2j14j1j2.19.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..0.26.2062.0..0j46j0i131j0i46j0i3j0i22i30j33i21.H0RAWf3mk9w

[roamer_1]

No really. Everyone has their own opinion. And they all stink like the old joke goes. But we all have our own view of what "conservatism" is.

Is it so very hard to look it up? Sheesh. They've got this new thing called the internet and everything...

Modern Conservatism is Reagan Conservatism. NeoConservatism (Bush) doesn't count - it is a usurpation of the title, and comes from the moderate wing of the Republican Party. Conservatism comes from the Goldwater or Libertarian wing of the Republican party.

Conservatism comes in four basic colors:
Civil-Libertarianism
Fiscal Conservatism
Social Conservatism
Defense Conservatism

Each of these factions rightly claim Conservatism. Each faction preserves (conserves) core principles which they consider to be paramount.
It was Reagan who pointed out that the principles of each faction also require the others, and thus, Reagan Conservatism embraces all of them.

And it is a Reagan Conservative that unites all the factions, because in that candidate, no faction is caused to ride in the back of the bus (nor thrown under). This is the failure of Neo-Conservativism.

So all you need to do now is find out the principles of the various factions, and match them to your own. To which factions do you adhere? Or can you embrace them all and win the big 'C'? Or are you even conservative at all?

For most, it is not a political stance. For most, it is a way-of-life.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Members of both parties have FAILED us. There are a lot of conservatives or conservative-minded voters who are backing Trump as well.  Part of the problem rather than the solution is that there are a lot of conservatives who continue to vote for the incumbent simply because they have an 'R' next to their name; McConnell, McCain, Graham, etc.

But again, what does that have to do with the nomination of Trump?  Every single guy running for the nomination was a guy with an R after his name, yet a plurality of professed Republicans had no problem hopping on board that train.  The problem at the Presidential level isn't voting for the GOP nominee in November -- it's voters choosing to nominate the wrong guy in the first place.  Because once that happens, conservatives are left with the choice of either sitting by and letting a Democrat get those Supreme Court appointments and every other power a President had, or voting for a nominee who isn't conservative.  That's where the problem is -- at the primary stage.

So the real question is -- why do we keep nominating these guys?  And please, nobody say "because the establishment makes us", because that isn't true.  The "establishment" didn't like McCain in 2008 -- he won anyway.  They did like Romney, but Romney was like the last guy left in Survivor because everyone else was unacceptable to too many people.  And this time, the establishment hated Trump, and he won anyway.

The problem is the voters themselves.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Is it so very hard to look it up? Sheesh. They've got this new thing called the internet and everything...

Look what up where? The definition of Conservatism? Well freerepublic has it's own answer (obviously). GOP BR has it's own answer, etc. etc.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

These "flavors" have actually wildly opposing viewpoints on many issues actually. For example neo and paleo flavors are directly opposed on many many issues.

You're exactly right.  And that's why we end up nominating the people we do.  As we've seen on this very board, there are some people who are conservative who don't like politicians who enmesh politics and religion.  Or at least, those conservatives believe that won't play in the general election, so they consider those candidates to be unworthy of nomination.  That's partly why Huckabee could never get above his 20%.  Then there are the small-government libertarian conservatives who often a despised by the social conservatives.  And it goes on an on.  So in the end, we often end up picking guys whose views are largely watered down, because they don't piss off the majority of Republicans.  It's lowest-common denominator nomination, with the default being "well, if I have to pick among this group, I might as well take the guy I think has the best chance of winning."

I think far too many conservatives subscribe to the fallacy that their views have a lot more support than they actually do, and so look for other villains to blame for their lack of success at the polls.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Look what up where? The definition of Conservatism? Well freerepublic has it's own answer (obviously). GOP BR has it's own answer, etc. etc.

And since there is no authoritative gatekeeper of what constitutes the correct definition, it's a pointless argument.  Jeb, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, etc. etc. etc. all call themselves conservatives, and there are millions of people who agree with each of them.  We have to recognize that the meaning of the term varies greatly by who is using it, which is why all those oft-cited surveys that "40% of the population considers themselves conservative" are pretty worthless.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You're exactly right.  And that's why we end up nominating the people we do.  As we've seen on this very board, there are some people who are conservative who don't like politicians who enmesh politics and religion.  Or at least, those conservatives believe that won't play in the general election, so they consider those candidates to be unworthy of nomination.  That's partly why Huckabee could never get above his 20%.  Then there are the small-government libertarian conservatives who often a despised by the social conservatives.  And it goes on an on.  So in the end, we often end up picking guys whose views are largely watered down, because they don't piss off the majority of Republicans.  It's lowest-common denominator nomination, with the default being "well, if I have to pick among this group, I might as well take the guy I think has the best chance of winning."

I think far too many conservatives subscribe to the fallacy that their views have a lot more support than they actually do, and so look for other villains to blame for their lack of success at the polls.