If Hillary Wins, What Should Conservatives Do?

[Smokin Joe]

Which it would be near impossible with a liberal Trump GOP.

We can stand for Constitutional Conservatism anywhere. We don't need the GOP to do so.

[DCPatriot]

Interesting. The use of the non-inclusive pronoun "your" implies you are not a Conservative, ie, not one of "us".

Darn it.   I slipped, didn't I?   18 years at FreeRepublic....and going on 8 years here at TBR.  Oh well,  one can't keep a ruse up forever, huh?   

 

NOTE:  The "your' in my original post refers to the SOCONS on this site, who don't give a fig about what WILL happen under a Hillary Clinton administration, but would rather 'die' on 'Sanctimony Hill', this November 8th.

[Smokin Joe]

Darn it.   I slipped, didn't I?   18 years at FreeRepublic....and going on 8 years here at TBR.  Oh well,  one can't keep a ruse up forever, huh?   

 

Don't be too disappointed. I could tell, but I was being polite and non-contentious and all that..

[DCPatriot]

Don't be too disappointed. I could tell, but I was being polite and non-contentious and all that..

 

[truth_seeker]

@truth_seeker

"Slick lawyers like Cruz, that expect to baffle people by being on both sides of many issues. Think they are smarter. "

-------

Never got that impression of Ted Cruz.  I admire his way of talking to voters as if they are as intelligent as he is.  He doesn't talk down to his audience.   He respects them.

Unfortunately, it appears he is wrong about the intelligence of a significant number of voters.

If Cruz won the primaries, I would have been solidly behind him.

He does not reach me personality wise, though. He's too much the lecturing, preacher type.

But again, I would support him 110%.

My top two choices to start were Walker, Perry. Governors with strong records. But they failed to reach voters, personality wise apparently. Not to mention the 8,000 lb. gorilla in the room.

[aligncare]

If Cruz won the primaries, I would have been solidly behind him.

He does not reach me personality wise, though. He's too much the lecturing, preacher type.

But again, I would support him 110%.

My top two choices to start were Walker, Perry. Governors with strong records. But they failed to reach voters, personality wise apparently. Not to mention the 8,000 lb. gorilla in the room.

I agree. And I discussed this with other Trump supporters. If Ted Cruz (who I dislike intensely) had won the primary, I would vote for him in a New York minute in the general election.

But then again, my butt never hurts.

[XenaLee]

SOURCE; NATIONAL REVIEW

URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439585/hillary-clinton-unpopular-mandate-problem-conservatives-offer-alternatives

By: Ian Tuttle


A new Washington Post/ABC poll, released on Tuesday, shows that Hillary Clinton’s post-convention era of good feelings lasted approximately three weeks. Despite months of relentless media coverage of Donald Trump, his endless string of campaign calamities (including a weeklong spat with the family of a fallen American soldier), and the increasingly widespread view that Trump is a bigot — the worst thing you can be in American public life — the two candidates are about equally unpopular. He’s viewed unfavorably by 60 percent of registered voters; she’s at 59 percent.

Which is to say that, if Hillary Clinton is elected in November, she is in for a miserable four years. Because none of the sources of her unpopularity are going away.

First are the scandals. Ongoing litigation surrounding Clinton’s e-mails and her use of a private e-mail server would stretch into her first term in office, and is certain to yield further embarrassing revelations (like this week’s discovery that Clinton failed to turn over several e-mails related to the Benghazi attacks), and it was recently reported that field offices of the FBI are considering investigating the e-mail scandal in conjunction with various U.S. Attorneys’ offices.

Even if those inquiries turned up nothing, their presence would continue to prompt questions about how seriously Clinton is taking security and transparency concerns as president (having spent her several years as secretary of state evading both). And, of course, looming over all of this will be the question of the Clinton Foundation. Given everything we know already about the way the Clinton Foundation operated during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, could we trust that the foundation and her White House would be truly separate? Hillary Clinton’s presidency would almost inevitably sit under a cloud of suspicion.

That would be of her own making, of course. Voters’ sense that Hillary is untrustworthy is not a fluke. It’s the consequence of the years she has spent periphrasing and circumlocuting — and, yes, outright lying. That has only reinforced what was obvious to many from their first introduction to the Clintons in the early 1990s: She has always been determined to claw her way into the Oval Office, by sheer force of will. Ruthless calculation may be effective, but it’s not attractive. People may tolerate Hillary, but they won’t like her.

And she will not be able to distract from any of the above with good governance. She has said that she will be Barack Obama’s third term, and the policies she has proposed suggest as much. In response to years of economic stagnation, she will maintain or expand the bureaucratic “solutions” that in fact have helped to entrench problems. (It’s not unlikely that Clinton would have to preside over a second recession.) With the Democrats’ health-care monstrosity creating headaches for millions of people nationwide, she promises to strengthen its grip. As half the nation seethes over unconstitutional immigration directives, she promises to effectively abrogate American immigration law in toto. And she’ll divide, rather than reconcile, on race and guns and abortion and conscience rights and much else. Doubling down on the last eight years is certain to yield more of the same frustration and anger.

None of this will be good for the country. But it does offer conservatives an opportunity. The time is now to come up with a comprehensive, positive agenda that presents a coherent and compelling alternative to the failed liberal agenda that, in 2020, will have held the day for a dozen years. Paul Ryan and the House Republican conference have tried to do this with their “Better Way” agenda, which offers an expansive, detailed agenda for six major areas: the economy, tax reform, health care, poverty and upward mobility, national security, and the Constitution. It’s this agenda, or something like it, that will be crucial if conservatives hope to seem more than a rump opposition. So will be a dedication to promoting this agenda beyond traditional Republican borders; a positive agenda needs to be pitched in Baltimore and Milwaukee, not just Orange County. And, finally, there must be leaders who understand how that agenda reflects conservative principles, and can articulate both as necessary.

This is a tall order, but hardly an impossible one, and if Donald Trump loses handily, as seems more and more likely, it will be a ready-made opportunity to reconstitute conservatism to address the needs of a larger and more diverse group of Americans.

Four years of Hillary Clinton will be enormously painful for conservatives. But millions of non-ideological Americans are going to be pained by it, too, and looking for an alternative. When 2020 rolls around, conservatives should have one to offer.

— Ian Tuttle is the Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow at the National Review Institute.

Pie in the sky dreamin.  By 2020, after four years of a Hillary Clinton presidency, it will be too damned late for any "hope" for the next election.  I know it.  You know it.  And anyone that's been paying attention for the past two decades knows it.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree. And I discussed this with other Trump supporters. If Ted Cruz (who I dislike intensely) had won the primary, I would vote for him in a New York minute in the general election.

But then again, my butt never hurts.

You need to use better peppers in your chili.

[HonestJohn]

You attack the messenger (saying "You" are pathetic), and yet you didn't even address the points he made. Nancy, @mystery-ak, when are you going to crack down on people who attack personally other members, rather than observing rules and arguing points?

Truth seeker is anything but pathetic. He's a good person who's been here since the beginning. He has a wealth of experience behind him. Yet, you dismiss him with insult and a callous disregard for the rules here.

Bad boy, Norm. You should work on your people skills...or did you leave those behind at free republic? Perhaps sanctimony entitles you to acting out with bad behavior?

No different than @truth_seeker trying, desperately, to attack the messenger with his "social justice warrior" crud.

[Applewood]

If Cruz won the primaries, I would have been solidly behind him.

He does not reach me personality wise, though. He's too much the lecturing, preacher type.

But again, I would support him 110%.

My top two choices to start were Walker, Perry. Governors with strong records. But they failed to reach voters, personality wise apparently. Not to mention the 8,000 lb. gorilla in the room.

I wasn't enthralled with any of the other candidates, but at this point, I would vote for Kasich if he was the nominee, and Kasich is too liberal for my tastes. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Just as we did when we fought New York liberal Donald Trump's nomination, we continue to fight for the conservative cause.

Hillary Rodham is from Chicago.   Get your facts straight.   New York is corrupt and underhanded,  but Chicago makes it look like a choir boy. 

[flowers]

But... the GOPe consider her someone they can 'do business with'.

Once elected I'm sure she couldn't care less whether anyone likes her or not - her kind never does. Who's gonna stop her?

Nobody.....she will have all the power in the world. She will make obama years look good.

[flowers]

Pie in the sky dreamin.  By 2020, after four years of a Hillary Clinton presidency, it will be too damned late for any "hope" for the next election.  I know it.  You know it.  And anyone that's been paying attention for the past two decades knows it.

She gets the gig.......there will never be another fair election in this country....starting with hers.

[austingirl]

If Hitlery wins Soros and the muslim brotherhood will be calling the shots while the confused liar with memory problems lines her pockets.

[Vulcan]

Hillary Rodham is from Chicago.   Get your facts straight.   New York is corrupt and underhanded,  but Chicago makes it look like a choir boy.

My facts are well in line.   I am well aware of Hillary's past, which also includes representing New York in the US senate.  New York is also her home.  You obviously don't believe that makes her a New Yorker.  Fine.  By employing that "logic", I am not a Californian because I am "from" Florida.  That about as flawed as it gets, but you're welcome to it.

It is interesting that you didn't deny Trump was a New York liberal.  Thanks for that bit of honesty.

Have a nice day.

[DiogenesLamp]

My facts are well in line.   I am well aware of Hillary's past, which also includes representing New York in the US senate.  New York is also her home.  You obviously don't believe that makes her a New Yorker.  Fine.

I am aware of all that.  They moved to New York after they left Washington D.C.  because they wanted to be near the monied elite and the power they wield.    But Hillary Lived in Arkansas longer than she's lived in New York,  but nobody is calling her an "Arkansasian." 

By employing that "logic", I am not a Californian because I am "from" Florida.  That about as flawed as it gets, but you're welcome to it.

You are missing my point.  People are instilled with the values of the community in which they grow up.  Hillary is Corrupt Chicago through and through.   Her brothers (both currently involved in corruption scandals)   are also Chicago Corrupt,  through and through.    Bill Ayers,  (Obama's mentor)  is suffused with Corrupt Chicago,  through and through.   

In the power blocs of Chicago,  corruption and intimidation are considered the *NORMAL*  way of doing business.    Obama wasn't from Chicago,  but his elder mentor Frank Marshall Davis helped him get "connected"  back in Chicago.   

Corruption in Chicago is so bad that even the locals call it "Crook County" instead of "Cook County."   Hillary comes from that political sewer,  and she was instilled with the values of Al Capone, et al.    New York also has a lot of corruption in it,  but compared to Chicago,  it's a boy scout. 

It is interesting that you didn't deny Trump was a New York liberal.  Thanks for that bit of honesty.

Have a nice day.

Why should I deny what seems perfectly obvious to anyone who has been paying attention?  Yes,  Trump has been a New York Liberal Democrat for his entire life,  and now he is presenting himself as a Conservative Republican so that he can achieve the Presidency,  capping off his life's work of tooting his own horn with the highest ranking position in the society of which he is a part.   


But he has more ethics than Hillary,  (who doesn't) More common sense than Hillary,  is not really an ideologue,  and has an established history of successful accomplishments.  (and some not so successful ones too.)   


Hillary is not only corrupt,  mercurial and totalitarian,  she's a f***ing idiot.   


He's already released a list of judges he would nominate,  and I think this is a signal to those of us most worried that he might have liberal proclivities to be reassured that he will follow his bases'  preference in the nomination of federal Judges.   I can only hope that he has put enough credibility into this commitment that he will not flip flop on it later,  but one can never really tell with Trump,  can one? 

I think he will follow through,  and I think he will build the wall and beef up border security. 


With Hitlery,  we will get the worst raving lunatics on the courts,  no wall,  no border security,  expanded taxes,  and a Gestapoized federal government intent on arresting us and seizing our assets. 


At least Trump does not hate us,  while Hillary hates us with an unearthly and all consuming passion.   She will use the federal government to attack us,  of that I have not the slightest doubt.  She's already done this before!   (as first lady.  Look up "File Gate." ) 

[Vulcan]

I am aware of all that.  They moved to New York after they left Washington D.C.  because they wanted to be near the monied elite and the power they wield.    But Hillary Lived in Arkansas longer than she's lived in New York,  but nobody is calling her an "Arkansasian." 

That doesn't mean she is not a New Yorker because she is. 

You are missing my point.  People are instilled with the values of the community in which they grow up.  Hillary is Corrupt Chicago through and through.   Her brothers (both currently involved in corruption scandals)   are also Chicago Corrupt,  through and through.    Bill Ayers,  (Obama's mentor)  is suffused with Corrupt Chicago,  through and through.

 

I'm not comparing Chicago to New York, you are.  But for the sake of satisfying your apparent need to do so, OK; Chicago is more corrupt than New York.  Hillary is still a New Yorker.   

In the power blocs of Chicago,  corruption and intimidation are considered the *NORMAL*  way of doing business.    Obama wasn't from Chicago,  but his elder mentor Frank Marshall Davis helped him get "connected"  back in Chicago. 

Both Obama and his mentor Frank Marshall Davis are completely irrelevant to my point that Hillary is a New Yorker. 

Corruption in Chicago is so bad that even the locals call it "Crook County" instead of "Cook County."   Hillary comes from that political sewer,  and she was instilled with the values of Al Capone, et al.    New York also has a lot of corruption in it,  but compared to Chicago,  it's a boy scout. 

There is no need for you to attempt to prove the corruption of Chicago to me; I am well aware of it and have never denied it.  That still doesn't mean Hillary is not a New Yorker.

Why should I deny what seems perfectly obvious to anyone who has been paying attention?  Yes,  Trump has been a New York Liberal Democrat for his entire life,  and now he is presenting himself as a Conservative Republican so that he can achieve the Presidency,  capping off his life's work of tooting his own horn with the highest ranking position in the society of which he is a part.   

So Trump has been there longer.  He, like she, are both New York liberals.

But he has more ethics than Hillary,  (who doesn't) More common sense than Hillary,  is not really an ideologue,  and has an established history of successful accomplishments.  (and some not so successful ones too.)   

I don't see that at all.  Trump is a lying New York liberal who has attempted to pass himself off as a conservative.  He fooled many and continues to do so to this day.  Hillary, in one the few times she says anything even remotely truthful, admits she is liberal/progressive.  Despite overwhelming evidence in a long history that proves he is, Trump can't be honest enough to admit the same.

Hillary is not only corrupt,  mercurial and totalitarian,  she's a f***ing idiot.

No argument here.  The same applies to New York liberal Donald Trump.  He is corrupt for his long history of buying favor with Washington's elite as well as screwing his creditors; he is as mercurial as can be, evidenced by his childish responses to anyone who dare not worship at the alter of Trump; and he is an F-ing idiot in that he knows absolutely nothing about politics yet has jumped in head first with what is clearly a doomed candidacy that can only assure victory for the Clinton Crime Family.   

He's already released a list of judges he would nominate,  and I think this is a signal to those of us most worried that he might have liberal proclivities to be reassured that he will follow his bases'  preference in the nomination of federal Judges.   I can only hope that he has put enough credibility into this commitment that he will not flip flop on it later,  but one can never really tell with Trump,  can one? 

And you have already admitted Trump "has been a New York Liberal Democrat for his entire life" (those are your exact words I copied and pasted from above).  Now you're saying that lifelong liberal, a man who has already flip flopped on many issues will keep his word? Do you often place your trust in liberals?  If so, name one other liberal you trust.  Just one.  As for lifelong liberal Donald Trump's high court appointments, he has also said his abortion activist sister would make a "Phenomenal" Supreme Court justice.  That was before he flip flopped and said he doesn't know what her positions are.   So now he would nominate someone who is family w/o no apparentl regard for what they believe.  And you place your trust in that?

I think he will follow through,  and I think he will build the wall and beef up border security. 

You can think whatever you'd like.  But name another liberal you trust and if you can't, why do you trust a man who you yourself said, "has been a New York Liberal Democrat for his entire life"?

With Hitlery,  we will get the worst raving lunatics on the courts,  no wall,  no border security,  expanded taxes,  and a Gestapoized federal government intent on arresting us and seizing our assets. 

I won't argue that.  I just don't see how one lying leftist is to be trusted any more than the other.

At least Trump does not hate us,  while Hillary hates us with an unearthly and all consuming passion.

 

Trump is a liberal who has a long history of supporting politicians (including Hillary Clinton) who "hate us".  That considered, I don't see him as being any different.  Again, you're placing your trust in  a lifelong liberal and his campaign promises.  I won't do that.

She will use the federal government to attack us,  of that I have not the slightest doubt.   She's already done this before!   (as first lady.  Look up "File Gate." )

I won't defend Hillary as she is every bit as evil as you describe.  But given Trump's long liberal past, his propensity to attack those who disagree with him and the fact that he is an egotistical and possibly maniacal jackass, how do you know he wouldn't do the same?    Again, you are trusting what he has said.  Do you always trust what liberals tell you while campaigning? 

I don't.