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

[roamer_1]

The problem is the voters themselves.

No. Most voters don't participate in primaries. Most folks aren't politically oriented. It's the politically oriented that keep foisting these unpalatable candidates upon us - and in large part, it is the game that is at fault.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

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.

So you don't know the location of this top secret website, coded by God himself, with the help of Reagan's corporeal essence, where the absolute definition of conservatism is chiseled into stone? Shame on you!

[roamer_1]

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.

Nope. The only time Republicans win is when they serve their base. All of it. They spend so much time running away from their base, devising means to subvert them, trying to 'run up the middle' in the primaries... That's why they lose.

At least the democrats know they need their base. They serve the most liberal among them slavishly.
Would that Republicans could take a lesson from that.

[DCPatriot]

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.

Couldn't have expressed that better myself, sir!

The 1st part of that truth became painfully apparent seeing Romney go down in defeat.

The 2nd part of that statement truth perfectly describes the anti-Trump faction in this forum.

They have absolutely no interest in seeing Hillary Clinton defeated...seeing as how it's down to Trump vs. Clinton.

No...their egos won't allow them. 

Not even the humiliation and even latent desperation of being tossed from FR was a slap back to reality.  No, they pretend it's a badge of honor..of sorts.

What they're 'saying' is....if I can't get my way, to hell with the Constitution...to hell with the Bill of Rights.

Mob rule we will accept....just so we can disrupt and carry on.

They're forum anarchists.   Nothing less.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Nope. The only time Republicans win is when they serve their base. All of it. They spend so much time running away from their base, devising means to subvert them, trying to 'run up the middle' in the primaries... That's why they lose.

At least the democrats know they need their base. They serve the most liberal among them slavishly.
Would that Republicans could take a lesson from that.

If the GOP base was so all powerful then it's "real conservative" candidates should have been able to cakewalk through the primaries to an easy election right? Take these years (2000, 2008, 2012), tell me who the "true conservative" candidates were and why they didn't win?

Who was your "preferred" candidate in 2012 and how did the "establishment" screw him?

It's sad how so many "conservatives" believe such fallacious nonsense, spoon fed to them like infants by their talk radio Gods.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No. Most voters don't participate in primaries.

So how about the voters who do?  And don't the voters who don't participate in primaries bear responsibility for not doing so?

Most folks aren't politically oriented. It's the politically oriented that keep foisting these unpalatable candidates upon us - and in large part, it is the game that is at fault.

Over 30 million people cast votes in the GOP primary alone this year.  Those 30 million aren't all "the GOP-e" -- they're overwhelmingly ordinary voters who care about which candidate wins the nomination.  It is those 30 million who "foisted" those candidates on you.  Heck, the establishment wanted far fewer candidates, and they didn't want Trump at all.  But they were powerless to stop him or any of the rest of them from entering the race, and from staying in as long as voters kept voting for them.

I just don't get it.  You don't want to blame the 30 million voters who actually voted, and you don't want to blame all the voters who were too lazy/disinterested to vote.  It's not the fault of the people who actually cast the votes that nominated those guys, it's the fault of....who?

Or to put it differently, why didn't that huge conservative base sweep Ted Cruz to a massive win?  He had tons of air time in all those debates, got his views out there, etc..  But he couldn't get enough votes.  Why not?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

We compromised in 2016 by picking a candidate everybody hates! Lol! 

[INVAR]

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

Stupid to think your own narrow definition is universal.

Let's see now, I have read self-identifying Conservatives push the need for gun bans and more expansive regulations on the right to keep and bear, declaring that to be 'conservative'.

I have read self-identifying Conservatives support Transgendered bathroom rights for perverts declaring that to be 'conservative'.

I have read self-identifying Conservatives bash legislation protecting businesses and religious institutions from being forced to capitulate to homosexual demands, declaring that to be 'conservative'.

I have read self-identifying Conservatives push the need for single payer healthcare, declaring that to be 'conservative'.

I have read self-identifying Conservatives say that we need to close all our military bases in the world , slash our defense budget and let the world fend for itself, declaring that to be 'conservative'.

I have read self-identifying Conservatives push for more taxes on the wealthy, declaring that to be 'conservative'.

I think all of the self-identifying "Conservatives" above share your opinion that we cannot permit 'narrow views' of Conservatism to exclude any of those positions.

Conservative values are now whatever any liberal and leftist says they are.

Which to me is no different than what Obama said yesterday that calling Jihadists "Islamic Terrorists" smears all Muslims and is not part of our "shared values as a nation".

Are Obama's values, America's' 'shared values'? 

I am certain that he and his ilk would classify what we say is an American value, stupid - and castigate our own definition of 'values' as narrow and not universal.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Which to me is no different than what Obama said yesterday that calling Jihadists "Islamic Terrorists" smears all Muslims and is not part of our "shared values as a nation".

Right, in other words, your opinion. Which we all have.

Thank you for proving my point.

[INVAR]

The 2nd part of that statement truth perfectly describes the anti-Trump faction in this forum.

They have absolutely no interest in seeing Hillary Clinton defeated...seeing as how it's down to Trump vs. Clinton.

No...their egos won't allow them. 

Not even the humiliation and even latent desperation of being tossed from FR was a slap back to reality.  No, they pretend it's a badge of honor..of sorts.

What they're 'saying' is....if I can't get my way, to hell with the Constitution...to hell with the Bill of Rights.

Mob rule we will accept....just so we can disrupt and carry on.

They're forum anarchists.   Nothing less.

Couldn't help yourself from bashing us could you?

You know, you guys ran us out of myriad former Conservative forums and social media groups to create your Trump Safe Spaces, and yet you still are not satisfied with the echo chambers you created for yourselves. 

You wanted an exodus of biblical Conservatives and "bible Thumpers" from your presence.  You got it.  But that is not enough obviously.

You continue to find those of us who will not vote for Trump and harass, bully, intimidate, insult, smear, and do as you just did above at every opportunity.

And yet you have the unmitigated hubris to get all uppity and scream about this internecine war you started and continue to stoke.

Like your prince, you people want blood and punishment upon everyone who will not vote as you demand.

Well, consequences you've sown for yourselves are going to be a bitch. 

Good luck converting the Bernie Supporters.  You're gonna need them to get your boy over the top.

[Ghost Bear]

Couldn't have expressed that better myself, sir!

The 1st part of that truth became painfully apparent seeing Romney go down in defeat.

The 2nd part of that statement truth perfectly describes the anti-Trump faction in this forum.

They have absolutely no interest in seeing Hillary Clinton defeated...seeing as how it's down to Trump vs. Clinton.

No...their egos won't allow them. 

Not even the humiliation and even latent desperation of being tossed from FR was a slap back to reality.  No, they pretend it's a badge of honor..of sorts.

What they're 'saying' is....if I can't get my way, to hell with the Constitution...to hell with the Bill of Rights.

Mob rule we will accept....just so we can disrupt and carry on.

They're forum anarchists.   Nothing less.

You really try my patience.

[truth_seeker]

The problem is the voters themselves.

Let me see if I get this. Year after year, Republicans and "conservatives" bitch and moan, swear at the elected GOP reps. They threaten to "primary" them, they develop a "Tea Party" to drive home the point of the "grass roots."

Come 2016 GOP primary season, and well into the process it turns out that 85% of the support has gone to "outsiders" named Trump, Carson and Cruz. A whole lot of rejoicing takes place. Hooray for us, we got our voices out, and see we are right.

The success of "outsiders" is proof that the "insiders" are the problem, and this time the true will of the true conservatives will win.

Oh, wait. Halt. Trump is leading. And a revolt from the establishment begins. They didn't embrace the outsider theme, to begin with. And the selection of Trump is their opening.

Hand wringing time. What to do about Trump?

Now I read on this once GOP, once conservative site, the "voters are the problem."

The "voters are the problem" is something which Romney, Ryan agree.

Now all that remains is what to do with those dastardly, uneducated, fascist voters that brought things to this point?

This year is final proof of the GOP's big problem. Circular firing squad.

Sen. Session, Speaker Gingrich, and more voters than any other candidate must have some sense.

Would it be wise to court them, to consider their points of view, or to demean them? Old marketing adage "The Customer is Always Right."

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The 2nd part of that statement truth perfectly describes the anti-Trump faction in this forum.  They have absolutely no interest in seeing Hillary Clinton defeated...seeing as how it's down to Trump vs. Clinton.
No...their egos won't allow them.

Maybe for some.  But I think a lot of people just cannot bring themselves to vote for someone whose views are so foreign to their own, even if they are marginally better than that of the alternative.  And for some, they don't even see them as being marginally better. 

Just because some folks don't see it the way you do doesn't make them "forum anarchists".  This is an unusual election, with a great many people being unhappy with the choices presented.  I'm personally not going to condemn those who vote for Trump, nor those who refrain from doing so.  Particularly because there's a decent argument that if Trump is elected and screws up, the consequences for the both the GOP and the conservative movement (who will be blamed by the media even though most don't consider Trump a conservative) could be extreme.

[INVAR]

Right, in other words, your opinion. Which we all have.

Thank you for proving my point.

Without a set of foundational principles you do not have a party, a community, a society or a nation.

When everyone decides for themselves what is good, right, moral, foundational and wrong based on their own opinions - nations quickly collapse into ruin.

Scripture is replete with examples of a nation that abandoned their foundations to embrace anarchy and what was alien "with everyman doing what was right in his own eyes".  That nation no longer exists.  It's people no longer exist.

But you are right. 

The bulk of this people in this country cannot even agree on what the definition of liberty is anymore, so the idea of discussing what is and is not Conservative is as silly and useless as discussing what liberty means.

Liberty is everyman doing what is right in his own eyes.

As such given countless examples from history, what we once knew as America will not exist at all in the very near future.

And what remains of our descendants will be scattered to the winds if they exist at all.

[RoosGirl]

Why call yourself a conservative if you have no interest in upholding the traditional, original intent of the constitution.  There is the document itself and plenty of supporting literature to explain what that is as long as people will start from a place that doesn't include their own opinion of what it *should* be.  Otherwise, just call yourself a republican and move on down the road with republican policy that has the tendency of shifting to the left every year.

[roamer_1]

If the GOP base was so all powerful then it's "real conservative" candidates should have been able to cakewalk through the primaries to an easy election right?

Nope. Take the Christians. Go lurk on a Christian board. Politics hardly even enters the frame. They are unconcerned, if not uninformed. Politics ain't their bag. Jesus is. The same with the other factions. They're busy, and uninterested. That's why only a tenth ever vote in the primaries.

Take these years (2000, 2008, 2012), tell me who the "true conservative" candidates were and why they didn't win?

2000=Keyes, 2008=Hunter/Tancredo (with a tip toward Hunter), 2012=None. I voted 3rd party.
Hunter was the most egregious case. He was purposefully stifled before the SC debates, even though he was the proclaimed winner of the debates he participated in, and even though he had won a state (WY voted early that year, IRC)

Who was your "preferred" candidate in 2012 and how did the "establishment" screw him?

There was no Conservative candidate. I voted 3rd party, and quit paying attention to the Republicans, as I had no dog in the hunt...

It's sad how so many "conservatives" believe such fallacious nonsense, spoon fed to them like infants by their talk radio Gods.

What's funny is that you believe that (and I very rarely listen to any talk radio).

Your product keeps losing. Maybe you should look at what you're selling.

The Christian Right alone, if you can turn it out, is 60M+ voters (actually, I believe way more than that) - nearly a full third of all voters. Maybe you should support a candidate that is attractive to them. When is the last time the Christians were courted? I'll tell you: Dubya's first term.

McCain is their direct enemy.
Romney is their direct enemy.
(and so is Trump).

Duh. No wonder you lost. And that's just the Christians. Throw them under the bus, and you can't win.

[Sanguine]

So, let me see if I understand this: there is not definitive definition of "conservative", instead we each define it according to our own thoughts and desires. 

So, we're not really speaking TO each other when we talk conservatism; we're speaking past each other since conservatism is unique to each person.

Is that right?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Nope. Take the Christians. Go lurk on a Christian board. Politics hardly even enters the frame. They are unconcerned, if not uninformed. Politics ain't their bag. Jesus is. The same with the other factions. They're busy, and uninterested. That's why only a tenth ever vote in the primaries.

About 60 million people voted in the primaries this year, compared to 127 million who voted in the 2012 general election.  So it's not quite half, but it is still a very large number of voters who participate in the primaries, not just a small elite.

The Christian Right alone, if you can turn it out, is 60M+ voters (actually, I believe way more than that) - nearly a full third of all voters. Maybe you should support a candidate that is attractive to them. When is the last time the Christians were courted? I'll tell you: Dubya's first term.

Mike Huckabee has consistently courted Christian conservatives in every primary in which he's run, and he can never get off the ground.

Bush got 50.5 million votes in 2000 and 62 million in 2004.  McCain got 60 million in 2008, and Romney got 61 million in 2012.  So the guy you claim most heavily courted Christian conservatives got nearly 10 million fewer votes than Republican got in the next three Presidential elections.  And if we assume that most of those Christian conservatives sat out for McCain and Romney, that means those two guys got upwards of 50 million votes from people other than Christian conservatives.  I think it's fair to assume that most of the folks who voters for McCain and Romney also voted for Bush, so if that's 50 million non-Christian conservative, but Republican votes...Dubya should have had somewhere north of 90 million votes in 2000, and had a sweep.

So either the Christian conservatives won't show up even when someone does court them (Bush 2000), or you are vastly overestimating their numbers.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So, let me see if I understand this: there is not definitive definition of "conservative", instead we each define it according to our own thoughts and desires. 

So, we're not really speaking TO each other when we talk conservatism; we're speaking past each other since conservatism is unique to each person.

Is that right?

Uh, right.  That's why Jeb, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Paul, etc. etc. etc. all called themselves "conservatives".  Whether that is a misuse of the label or not, that is in fact how the label is actually used.

And that's why a nation in which 40% of voters self-identify as "conservative" repeatedly nominates candidates whom many believe are not conservative -- at least, according to the critics' definition.  Do you really think everyone actually means the same thing when they say "conservative"?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Your product keeps losing. Maybe you should look at what you're selling.

You mean like Keyes, Tancredo, etc etc.? Oh right, there's always some nefarious conspiracy to keep them down. It couldn't be that voters don't want what they're selling! Not at all!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So, let me see if I understand this: there is not definitive definition of "conservative", instead we each define it according to our own thoughts and desires. 

So, we're not really speaking TO each other when we talk conservatism; we're speaking past each other since conservatism is unique to each person.

Is that right?

Yeah. Do you really think that spouting off on an internet forum will make one shred of difference?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You mean like Keyes, Tancredo, etc etc.? Oh right, there's always some nefarious conspiracy to keep them down. It couldn't be that voters don't want what they're selling! Not at all!

But...everyone I knew loved those guys, so it must be a conspiracy!

[Sanguine]

Uh, right.  That's why Jeb, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Paul, etc. etc. etc. all called themselves "conservatives".  Whether that is a misuse of the label or not, that is in fact how the label is actually used.

And that's why a nation in which 40% of voters self-identify as "conservative" repeatedly nominates candidates whom many believe are not conservative -- at least, according to the critics' definition.  Do you really think everyone actually means the same thing when they say "conservative"?

I think it's pointless and irritating to use the word if you don't ascribe to a generally-accepted definition of it.

[RoosGirl]

And yet another example how we allow liberals to control the conversation by controlling the terms.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think it's pointless and irritating to use the word if you don't ascribe to a generally-accepted definition of it.

Then it looks like you answered your own question:

So, we're not really speaking TO each other when we talk conservatism; we're speaking past each other since conservatism is unique to each person.

Is that right?

The term is useful if we use it with the understanding that it is a very broad umbrella that includes a lot of different opinions.  It's useful as a relative term compared to progressivism, but the point is that we should be very conscious when using it that it doesn't always mean the same thing to each of us.