The GOP's Death Wish

[R4 TrumPence]

is poopie head OK?

 

[OldSaltUSN]

"Is this the spot where we stick in the crying baby emoticon? I believe it's customary after the above whine, no?" - Trump Supporter aligncare

Ah, Trumpkins are feelin' their oats now.  Just after a Mod taps on a couple of #NeverTrumps for lack of decorum, in comes Align, doing the same thing.  Where's your ping list, Align?  Time to get us the ** ZOT **, while snickering behind the hedgerow?

@aligncare @mystery-ak @Repub4Trump

ALLRIGHTYYY, I guess we're just like FREEREPUBLIC here now!

You know, it's not like we make this stuff up without these provocative kiddies coming in to deliberately provoke us.   We try to keep things logical, factual, and without personal vitriol.   I honestly don't see a lot of posts like the above from the #NeverTrump crowd.  We are usually making an intellectual point, frequently with sarcasm. 

[OldSaltUSN]

We try to be fair here..I know it doesn't seem that way at times....no one side is favored here.

@mystery-ak @Repub4Trump

Yeah, I know you folks are trying to be fair, and that you're not robots.  You can get into it with your own bias, even though you don't intend to.

Forgive us, at times, for trying to keep you honest, too.   It's not that we don't appreciate the forum, nor your efforts to police it fairly.

Thanks, and regards.  O.S.

[Mesaclone]

I don't know the answer, XXXXX.  However, with your DONALD supporting Planned Parenthood, INCLUDING ACTUAL ABORTION FACTORIES (that's Trumps factual history, not your propaganda), there is no reason to believe that the death toll from abortions, for which you cry crocodile tears, will be any different under President Trump or President Hitlery.

We do not call forum  members, trolls,libtards or any other derogatory names! Thanks!- R4T

Edit:  Regrets, and apologies.  OldSalt

   :nometalk:

Actually there's a tremendous reason to believe there will be a huge difference. Trump has been clear about what he will look for in SCJ's, and has given great examples of the kind of people he will look to for those appointments...and the GOP congress will have the power to hold him to it. On the other hand, Hillary has been clear that she wants Kagan/Sotomayor/Ginsberg type nominees. If you can't see the vast differences there, you are deliberately being vacuous. If you're hiding behind we can't be sure he will make such appointments...well...that doesn't hold water because we DO know that Hillary Clinton will stick to her liberal roots.

[Mechanicos]

@mystery-ak @Repub4Trump

Yeah, I know you folks are trying to be fair, and that you're not robots.  You can get into it with your own bias, even though you don't intend to.

Forgive us, at times, for trying to keep you honest, too.   It's not that we don't appreciate the forum, nor your efforts to police it fairly.

Thanks, and regards.  O.S.

Does the fact I have been banned 2 times now help prove its fair how the ops moderate the forum?

[Mesaclone]

@Mesaclone

Mesaclone won't respond.  Look at the ratio of this  posts to those who respond to him.  He blathers his boilerplate campaign rhetoric, never responds when every logical argument he spews is blown out of the water, and then goes on to do the same on five other threads.  Mesaclone is a row boat drawing the draft of an aircraft carrier, in regards to the time we on TBR spend responding to his posts, simply because we care about conservative issues, and he does not.  To him, it's a game, and a game at which he's probably paid $11.00 to play inside a Trump boiler room operation.

We do not call forum  members, trolls,libtards or any other derogatory names! Thanks!- R4T

Happy to respond. Those quotes are nearly 20 years old. Mr Trump's position on abortion has changed dramatically since then. Next time, throw out a tough one...because that little conversation with Russert is a piece of cake to dismiss. We all know what Trump's position on abortion was back then, just as its patently clear it has changed...much like Reagan and many others before him on this issue.

And if you believe I'm paid to post or be here you are really deep into the aluminum foil hat country....which really isn't all that surprising. Many on here know what I do for a living, so there' s no mystery or conspiracy plots afoot...your paranoia is showing.

Also, should any of my arguments be blown out of the water I'll be glad to respond...still waiting for that to happen at this point but I'll keep an eye open for it. Thus far, I've mostly been met with Dem talking point responses, drama queen diatribes, and aluminum foil freakouts like the one you just posted. It would be great actually, to get "blown out of the water" by some sort of logical argument from the other side...so far the only truly coherent voice from the Nevertrumps has come from Major Bill, but he's been an anomalous intellect adrift on a sea of doltish exuberance for the most part.

[skeeter]

Actually there's a tremendous reason to believe there will be a huge difference. Trump has been clear about what he will look for in SCJ's, and has given great examples of the kind of people he will look to for those appointments...and the GOP congress will have the power to hold him to it. On the other hand, Hillary has been clear that she wants Kagan/Sotomayor/Ginsberg type nominees. If you can't see the vast differences there, you are deliberately being vacuous. If you're hiding behind we can't be sure he will make such appointments...well...that doesn't hold water because we DO know that Hillary Clinton will stick to her liberal roots.

The problem is not with what Trump promises, the problem is with his integrity - what will he end up doing.

Talk is cheap, and by the way Trump has been shucking & jiving since becoming presumptive nominee his is especially so. In fact, since he has no record of having ever accomplished a single thing in the name of conservatism there is NO evidence he'll deliver on a single damn one of his earlier promises.

[Mesaclone]

The problem is not with what Trump promises, the problem is with his integrity - what will he end up doing.

Talk is cheap, and by the way Trump has been shucking & jiving since becoming presumptive nominee his is especially so. In fact, since he has no record of having ever accomplished a single thing in the name of conservatism there is NO evidence he'll deliver on a single damn one of his earlier promises.

He's not been a politician so his "record" is sparse...this is true. And your uncertainty is even reasonable...but it carries little weight in the face of the CERTAINTY THAT COMES WITH HILLARY. Even if I were to fully accept your logic...and I don't...you are still talking about a known horrific evil vs an unknown quantity. That should be a rather easy choice.

[Luis Gonzalez]

He's not been a politician so his "record" is sparse...this is true. And your uncertainty is even reasonable...but it carries little weight in the face of the CERTAINTY THAT COMES WITH HILLARY. Even if I were to fully accept your logic...and I don't...you are still talking about a known horrific evil vs an unknown quantity. That should be a rather easy choice.

When that "unknown quantity" is possibly worse by magnitudes (it is after all as you suggested an UNKNOWN quantity) than the "known horrific evil", the choice becomes way less easy than you want to paint.

[Mesaclone]

When that "unknown quantity" is possibly worse by magnitudes (it is after all as you suggested an UNKNOWN quantity) than the "known horrific evil", the choice becomes way less easy than you want to paint.

But its not possibly worse. Not even close to such a possibility. That's just paranoia and hyperbole with no justification or evidence whatsoever.

First, its restrained by the possible...and no president can effectively do anything without, at a minimum, the support of their own party in congress. Second, while there is some unknown, what we do know is illustrated by his articulated positions and those are almost uniformly conservative to moderate (in some cases). None of his stated positions are liberal. So while you could argue that ANY candidate/human might go bananas once in office and do things that are literally insane...there is no empirical evidence that either candidate in this race are capable of such.

So in the end we have a candidate that is radically left wing, and one that has a very short political record but who has clearly stated conservative positions on most, perhaps all, issues...and who has disavowed any past positions that were not heterodox conservative. That's not a difficult choice, and signifies two very different probabilities as to how they would likely govern.

[skeeter]

He's not been a politician so his "record" is sparse...this is true. And your uncertainty is even reasonable...but it carries little weight in the face of the CERTAINTY THAT COMES WITH HILLARY. Even if I were to fully accept your logic...and I don't...you are still talking about a known horrific evil vs an unknown quantity. That should be a rather easy choice.

Alexander Hamilton would probably disagree with you.

Those who believe it is better to lose to a true enemy whose policies you can fight and repudiate, rather than to a false friend whose schemes will drag you down with him is perfectly logical.

I'm not there yet, but the theory makes sense and has plenty of evidence to support it.

[DCPatriot]

Hillary as POTUS, gets to spin the chamber ten times and fire at your temple from less than a foot away.

Trump as POTUS, only gets to spin it once.



   I still gotta go with Trump!   

[truth_seeker]

Does the fact I have been banned 2 times now help prove its fair how the ops moderate the forum?

To the best of MY knowledge the ONLY ones banned have been Trump supporters.

Carling, A-Lert  ?? Where are they ??

Not aware that ANY nevertrump has been banned, and if I am mistaken I would like to know the facts.

[jmyrlefuller]

To the best of MY knowledge the ONLY ones banned have been Trump supporters.

Carling, A-Lert  ?? Where are they ??

Not aware that ANY nevertrump has been banned, and if I am mistaken I would like to know the facts.

That should say something about the behavior of the pro-Trump side of the argument.

Both of those two were being particularly and consistently obnoxious antagonists over an extremely long period of time (and a couple of the others here are approaching that same level of animosity); outside of perhaps the long-departed bkepley, I have NEVER seen anyone on our side of the argument behave in such a way over such a long period of time.

It seems that much of the Trump caucus would rather cause trouble and insult other posters than actually have a discussion.

Of course, I could turn this around and tell you guys to not be such crybabies and bedwetters as you did in another thread.

[Mechanicos]

That should say something about the behavior of the pro-Trump side of the argument.

Both of those two were being particularly and consistently obnoxious antagonists over an extremely long period of time (and a couple of the others here are approaching that same level of animosity); outside of perhaps the long-departed bkepley, I have NEVER seen anyone on our side of the argument behave in such a way over such a long period of time.

It seems that much of the Trump caucus would rather cause trouble and insult other posters than actually have a discussion.

Of course, I could turn this around and tell you guys to not be such crybabies and bedwetters as you did in another thread.

That's because conservatives do not go running to the Mods every time somebody says something that hurts their feelings.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

"pushed ahead and supported him"???  The man got the most votes...by a mile. He got the most delegates...by a mile. Who else COULD be the nominee in that circumstance? And the truth is, had Cruz somehow won you'd have the Trump supporters just as adamantly against him right now and we'd face the exact same problem of unifying the party.

The party can't succeed when its factions take that stance...the my guy or no one stance...it is why we lose and will continue to lose. The only way to succeed...we get to argue and debate in the primary...and then we ALL rally around the nominee, even if that means choosing the lesser of evils. If you're too superior to do that...we all lose, over and over again.

And please quit with the self righteous...."my vote belongs to me" garbage. We all know this. The argument isn't about what you have the right to do, its about what is the intelligent and rational course. In other words, its about what you should do...what you can do is anything you choose.

I don't believe most of the memebers of the Republican party reflect Trumps positions and are pro abortion and anti-second amendment like Trump is. I think Cruz would have been able to unify all but the Washington Cartel side of the party and unlike Trump would have a ground game and grass roots support. I think that applies to many of the folks that ran in the primary. The reason Trump can't create unity is becuause he is running against his own party's platform.

[HonestJohn]

To the best of MY knowledge the ONLY ones banned have been Trump supporters.

Carling, A-Lert  ?? Where are they ??

Not aware that ANY nevertrump has been banned, and if I am mistaken I would like to know the facts.

Really now?

bkepley... godzilla... ring a bell?

After being told, when I first got here (by the usual band of Trump supporters), that I was both of them... I looked into their posts.  They were *VERY* anti-Trump.

When you open a can of worms, don't acted so shocked when they get on you, too.

[INVAR]

That's because conservatives do not go running to the Mods every time somebody says something that hurts their feelings.

That explains why the Trump Militant run to the mods or beg for the zotting of everybody that says something they do not like about their Chosen. 

They are NOT Conservatives.

Thanks for stating what we already know.

[RoosGirl]

Your approach brought us Barack Obama...and now Hillary Clinton...as president. That is evil...tangible and making laws, appointing SCJ's, and taking away freedoms.

How's that workin' out for you...or for all of us for that matter?

Your approach brought us the whole R majority House and Senate that bends over backward to accommodate a liberal agenda.  How's that working out for us?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

That's because conservatives do not go running to the Mods every time somebody says something that hurts their feelings.

But certain Trump folks do go running off to FR to get sympathy and reload their talking points. 

[EasyAce]

I do miss having the write-in vote, of course, but since my state has "none of the above"
I was perfectly content voting "none of the above" in 2008 and 2012. And I'll be
perfectly content voting that way come November, if it comes to that. I've heard precious
little to change my mind, and I don't expect to hear anything that will change it by
November. Both apparent candidates are poison.

[jmyrlefuller]

That's because conservatives do not go running to the Mods every time somebody says something that hurts their feelings.

That is the logic of middle-school bullies. "Crybaby! You went to get a grownup!"

The mods are already patrolling most of the threads, especially the most inflammatory ones. You can rest assured they see bad behavior without anyone needing to report it. I can count on one hand the times I've used the "report to moderator" feature here.

[Lando Lincoln]

That is the logic of middle-school bullies. "Crybaby! You went to get a grownup!"

The mods are already patrolling most of the threads, especially the most inflammatory ones. You can rest assured they see bad behavior without anyone needing to report it. I can count on one hand the times I've used the "report to moderator" feature here.

jmyrle... spot-on, 100% correct.  To think otherwise is naive.

[RoosGirl]

That's because conservatives do not go running to the Mods every time somebody says something that hurts their feelings.

No, they just put them on ignore. :P

[Mesaclone]

Your approach brought us the whole R majority House and Senate that bends over backward to accommodate a liberal agenda.  How's that working out for us?

Well, its a lot better than it would be working out for us with a D majority. Politics is rife with imperfection, as is democracy. We don't get perfection nor the perfect candidate, so on some level there ALWAYS must be moral compromise...but a moral narcissistic cannot do this. And failing to do so, means defeat...which is what we've seen repeatedly. Glad to see you doing your part to keep that going,.