The Flight 93 Election

[HonestJohn]

Already posted with debate.

Mods, can you merge threads with this one?

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,223861.0.html

[unknown]

2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.

Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

READ THE WHOLE THING.  It's well-reasoned and makes clear the two (and only two) alternatives we all have in the 2016 election, regardless of what you may feel to be the case.  Key section (out of several paragraphs that deserve that distinction):

How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They [ED: conservatives] merely help ratify them.

http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/

All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They [ED: conservatives] merely help ratify them.

Maybe not Cruz.

But certainly the other 15 are. The other 15 are liberal leftist democrat GOPe, RINO, masquerading with an R. They should really just have joined the D's.

[wolfcreek]

All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They [ED: conservatives] merely help ratify them.

Maybe not Cruz.

But certainly the other 15 are. The other 15 are liberal leftist democrat GOPe, RINO, masquerading with an R. They should really just have joined the D's.

Indeed. [maybe not Huckabee either]

[unknown]

Indeed. [maybe not Huckabee either]

You are correct, I missed that one.

[aligncare]

With all due respect it's right up there with the stoopidist articles penned this election cycle.

This is not a life or death election and those thinking it is are ... well...nutz.

No matter who is elected their agenda has to be enacted by the Congress and that ain't gonna happen.

Really how can anyone believe this tripe

So stupid that Rush Limbaugh the other day spent practically the entire show discussing it, he thought it that significant and worthy of discussion.

In my opinion, you're letting your Trump hate get in the way of objective analyses.

[sinkspur]

So stupid that Rush Limbaugh the other day spent practically the entire show discussing it, he thought it that significant and worthy of discussion.

In my opinion, you're letting your Trump hate get in the way of objective analyses.

Rush Limbaugh is a Trumphumper.  He's supported him since the day he entered the race.

He is not objective, in any way, shape or form.

[roamer_1]

This is an unbelievable astute observation. Unbelievable, because that is how most conservatives today will take it. But astute, because where has conservatism lead us over the last many years? What kind of society are we living in today? And, the answer is: "Conservatism" has failed us.

Absolutely absurd. Republicans failed us, because they didn't practice Conservatism.
What do you mean, 'Look where conservatism lead us over the last many years'?
Outside of actual rank and file Conservative citizens, where the hell has there been ANY Conservatism in leadership during that time? What Conservative principles were defended?

Your statement is NONSENSE. It is because liberalism runs rampant that we are where we are.
Those who failed to DEFEND Conservative truths are who failed us.

[INVAR]

And, the answer is: "Conservatism" has failed us.

Thanks for outing yourself to all of us.

[unknown]

Absolutely absurd. Republicans failed us, because they didn't practice Conservatism.
What do you mean, 'Look where conservatism lead us over the last many years'?
Outside of actual rank and file Conservative citizens, where the hell has there been ANY Conservatism in leadership during that time? What Conservative principles were defended?

Your statement is NONSENSE. It is because liberalism runs rampant that we are where we are.
Those who failed to DEFEND Conservative truths are who failed us.

And that is exactly the point!!

[roamer_1]

And that is exactly the point!!

LOL! What point? What is going to change with a NY liberal president and the very same people in leadership?
You've bought more-of-the-same, if-not-more-so. You just don't know it yet.

[unknown]

LOL! What point? What is going to change with a NY liberal president and the very same people in leadership?
You've bought more-of-the-same, if-not-more-so. You just don't know it yet.

Hmmm. You jumped the discussion. We were talking about the current status of conservatism and how it has been usurped by liberalism (over the last few decades of so.)

[roamer_1]

Hmmm. You jumped the discussion. We were talking about the current status of conservatism and how it has been usurped by liberalism (over the last few decades of so.)

No I didn't jump the discussion. This is HOW Conservatism gets 'usurped'.
Liberalism is winning because there is no one standing in opposition.
That is the product of lesser evil voting. This is what you get.

Liberal Republicans, liberal candidates... Giving you the very same thing you get from Democrats.

[unknown]

No I didn't jump the discussion. This is HOW Conservatism gets 'usurped'.
Liberalism is winning because there is no one standing in opposition.
That is the product of lesser evil voting. This is what you get.

Liberal Republicans, liberal candidates... Giving you the very same thing you get from Democrats.

Yes, I agree. And they have been calling themselves conservatives, and standard bearers for conservatism: Ryan, McCain, Romney, Kasich, Etc. So this article is about how this modern conservatism has been failing and has failed; and therefore something different other than this status quo conservatism is needed.

[roamer_1]

Yes, I agree. And they have been calling themselves conservatives, and standard bearers for conservatism: Ryan, McCain, Romney, Kasich, Etc. So this article is about how this modern conservatism has been failing and has failed; and therefore something different other than this status quo conservatism is needed.

Except in that this 'modern conservatism' you speak of is not, and has never been Conservatism. The people you mention, and their kind, come out of the moderate wing (Bush, Dole, etc) or the liberal wing (Romney, Trump)

Conservatism is exclusive to the Goldwater/Reagan wing. Reagan IS the status Quo Conservatism.

[unknown]

Except in that this 'modern conservatism' you speak of is not, and has never been Conservatism. The people you mention, and their kind, come out of the moderate wing (Bush, Dole, etc) or the liberal wing (Romney, Trump)

Conservatism is exclusive to the Goldwater/Reagan wing. Reagan IS the status Quo Conservatism.

I agree, mostly.

This "modern conservatism" has never been Conservatism. You and I know this. Too many politicians today run as conservatives even though they are not. They grab a hold of the R and claim conservatism and many folks just go along for the ride. Conservatism has been usurped. Most people that see this are very angry at the "status quo" of today's "modern conservatism." The status quo being anyone in the current political infrastructure.

This is where the first backlash came from with the tea party. An attempt to get back to original conservatism. But look what happened. Many tea party winners turned liberal and the status quo of "modern conservatism" actively tried and succeeded in many instances of undermining potential original conservatives. The status quo are absolutely to be blamed for the destruction of the Republican Party. In their attempt to keep power grips on the "modern conservatism" they have inflamed their constituents such as yourself and myself (I hope I have not misinterpreted yourself with this sentence.)

So people are really angry and now have come to the conclusion that only an outsider can break the stranglehold of the current status quo of modern conservatism. Enter Trump. People are now willing to take an extreme risk with him. And I believe it is an extreme risk. And you may not agree with this, but those same people do not believe America will survive with even one term of Hillary.

[unknown]

Except in that this 'modern conservatism' you speak of is not, and has never been Conservatism. The people you mention, and their kind, come out of the moderate wing (Bush, Dole, etc) or the liberal wing (Romney, Trump)

Conservatism is exclusive to the Goldwater/Reagan wing. Reagan IS the status Quo Conservatism.

Here is an example of modern conservatism in action, with all the current status quo actors and usual suspects. Where's Boehner? All we need is him to round out the action.

There are also late reports indicating that McConnell plans to capitulate and drop the prohibition on funding Planned Parenthood in the Zika bill, as suggested as suggested by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (C, 77%) and Mark Kirk, R-Ill. (F 17%) earlier this week. This runs counter to the House bill passed earlier this year. It’s essentially a fight with Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, and Obama on one side and House conservatives on another side. House leadership is pretending to fight for conservatives while allowing McConnell to orchestrate the sabotage for them.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/mcconnells-double-budget-betrayal-begins
McConnell’s double budget betrayal begins

[INVAR]

Yes, I agree. And they have been calling themselves conservatives, and standard bearers for conservatism: Ryan, McCain, Romney, Kasich, Etc. So this article is about how this modern conservatism has been failing and has failed; and therefore something different other than this status quo conservatism is needed.

And so making a lifelong NYC Liberal Democrat who just two years ago, funded and endorsed an admitted Communist for NY mayor - is 'trying something different'???

Perhaps you have a point.

Today, voting for actual lifelong Liberal Democrats to office in the GOP rather than RINOs who play pretend Conservatives for votes is that 'difference' you think we need.

Pathetic.

Vote for liberals and you will get Leftist Socialism.

Every.  Single.  Time.

Doesn't matter if it's a career politician, or a NY reality TV cult of personality pretending to be a Republican.

[unknown]

@roamer_1

So check this one out. I want to play this out.

The article I just referenced above mentions a Mark Kirk, R-Ill. (F 17%). I know nothing about this person. But in just looking that he has an R by his name shows that he is considered as a conservative by today's standards, a modern conservative. But he has a CR of 17%.

So playing this out some more, he becomes a leader in the house, and eventually runs for president. He is a modern conservative.

This is a sad joke on today's America.

How did this guy make it into the Republican Party, let alone even running for a political office? I am all for making people that want to run for office to take a oath of office. As a matter of fact, right after Declaration of Independence, almost all states had a religious oath required to be a public office holder. The oath was faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and belief in Old and New Testament as divine revelation from God.

[roamer_1]

This "modern conservatism" has never been Conservatism. You and I know this.

Then stop concatenating the two. You accuse me with them - That is neither right nor true. Reagan is not to be blamed for what RINOs do in his name.

Too many politicians today run as conservatives even though they are not. They grab a hold of the R and claim conservatism and many folks just go along for the ride.

Many folks may, but Conservatives do not. Why do you suppose that the most adamantine INSIST upon Conservatives based upon their record?
Why do you suppose the rock-ribbed are not swayed by campaign year promises?

Because the record PROVES their Conservatism. I know what someone like Cruz is going to do, because he's done it his whole life long.
Inversely, I also know what Trump is going to do, because despite his election year turd-polish, he's also done it his whole life long. That's why arguments for him fall upon deaf ears.

Conservatism has been usurped.

Nonsense. Conservatism is a way of life.

Most people that see this are very angry at the "status quo" of today's "modern conservatism." The status quo being anyone in the current political infrastructure.

That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I'm all for throwing the bastards out, but that ain't what y'all are doing in your pointless hissy fit. The tea party worked their ass off and most everything they did, you have undone.

This is where the first backlash came from with the tea party. An attempt to get back to original conservatism.

The FIRST backlash? Where have you been?

But look what happened. Many tea party winners turned liberal and the status quo of "modern conservatism" actively tried and succeeded in many instances of undermining potential original conservatives.

LOL! Historic gains in state houses. Historic gains in governors. An historic overturning in the House. The Liberty Caucus went from 25 or 30, to somewhere near 50. And you're whining that *some* turned out to be RINOs?

So people are really angry and now have come to the conclusion that only an outsider can break the stranglehold of the current status quo of modern conservatism. Enter Trump.

Oh, horseshit. If you want an outsider, look to Cruz. Look to Castle. Don't tell me for a minute that a NY City liberal crony-capitalist is going to bring your every conservative wish. Apparently, either you are no Conservative, or you've a penchant to be distracted by shiny things.

People are now willing to take an extreme risk with him. And I believe it is an extreme risk. And you may not agree with this, but those same people do not believe America will survive with even one term of Hillary.

Good. Then bring it all down. Right now. Better now than on my kids. If we have become so very faithless that we, as a people, cannot even hold to the truths that our fathers called self-evident... Then we deserve to lose it.

But as for me, I will hold to the principles I have lived by until the day I die. I will not ever compromise them. It isn't politics to me. It is who I am. Maybe that's the part all y'all can't understand.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

So check this one out. I want to play this out.
This is a sad joke on today's America.

How did this guy make it into the Republican Party, let alone even running for a political office?

The lesser evil. Think of that while you vote for Trump.

I am all for making people that want to run for office to take a oath of office. As a matter of fact, right after Declaration of Independence, almost all states had a religious oath required to be a public office holder. The oath was faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and belief in Old and New Testament as divine revelation from God.

Then why on earth are you fighting for exactly the opposite?
Your vote is your endorsement. That is ALL it can ever be.
Vote for what you believe in.

[Doug Loss]

@roamer_1But in just looking that he has an R by his name shows that he is considered as a conservative by today's standards, a modern conservative. But he has a CR of 17%.

You make a completely unwarranted assumption that being a Republican politician means you are automatically considered to be a conservative.  This is demonstrably wrong, and everyone knows it.

[roamer_1]

Oh, horseshit. If you want an outsider, look to Cruz. Look to Castle. Don't tell me for a minute that a NY City liberal crony-capitalist is going to bring your every conservative wish. Apparently, either you are no Conservative, or you've a penchant to be distracted by shiny things.

@unknown
Reading back through it this morning, I'll apologize for this bit - I meant the sentiment, but the volume was more than intended... And it sounds more personal toward you exactly - Also unintended... I tend to use 'y'all' a lot to maintain a 3rd person distance, and I regret the overt directness.

Yours is the sort of position that is exasperating for me - I can hear 'conservative' in your words. You seem to pine for it. But then you actually support the opposite, which agitates me to no end. I'm sorry for that. I would have rather pointed it out and receive a reply that might explain the disparity... Because i find it wholly inexplicable...

You see what voting for RINOs does to the party and to the Conservative cause, but yet, here you are, defending what is unarguably one of the most liberal Repub candidates for POTUS in the history of the party.
How does that work?

[INVAR]

You make a completely unwarranted assumption that being a Republican politician means you are automatically considered to be a conservative.  This is demonstrably wrong, and everyone knows it.

Demonstrably wrong yes.  The GOP is not, and has not been a 'Conservative party' since Reagan, and largely in it's history has not been what we define as Reagan-Conservatism.

However, you are wrong to state 'everyone knows it'.  Public perception among most Joe Sixpacks is that if one is a Republican, they are a Conservative.  The perception among nearly all Democrats is that if one is a Republican they are a Conservative and therefore a dirty-bigoted-homphobic-intolerant-Christian-racist.

[roamer_1]

Demonstrably wrong yes.  The GOP is not, and has not been a 'Conservative party' since Reagan, and largely in it's history has not been what we define as Reagan-Conservatism.

However, you are wrong to state 'everyone knows it'.  Public perception among most Joe Sixpacks is that if one is a Republican, they are a Conservative.  The perception among nearly all Democrats is that if one is a Republican they are a Conservative and therefore a dirty-bigoted-homphobic-intolerant-Christian-racist.

That's legit... especially since more Conservatives now reside outside of the Republican party (myself included), and have done so many years hence.

[unknown]

@unknown
Reading back through it this morning, I'll apologize for this bit - I meant the sentiment, but the volume was more than intended... And it sounds more personal toward you exactly - Also unintended... I tend to use 'y'all' a lot to maintain a 3rd person distance, and I regret the overt directness.

Yours is the sort of position that is exasperating for me - I can hear 'conservative' in your words. You seem to pine for it. But then you actually support the opposite, which agitates me to no end. I'm sorry for that. I would have rather pointed it out and receive a reply that might explain the disparity... Because i find it wholly inexplicable...

You see what voting for RINOs does to the party and to the Conservative cause, but yet, here you are, defending what is unarguably one of the most liberal Repub candidates for POTUS in the history of the party.
How does that work?

Thanks for this.

I wasn't initially going to respond back to this thread at all, but your courteousness is refreshing. So I will re-engage.

I will address this point a bit more:

       

From unknown: This "modern conservatism" has never been Conservatism. You and I know this.

From roamer_1: Then stop concatenating the two. You accuse me with them - That is neither right nor true.

I have been concatenating the two because it is the theme of the original posted article. So I was trying to keep my discussion within this context. And you are correct, I am not "conservative" with respect to the "modern conservative" definition, and neither are you.

The issue in todays society is that you and I are now being equated with the new definition. We have lost control of the proper label of conservative. This is seen with the general definition of anyone with an R. Anyone with an R is generally defined as "conservative." Regardless of any of their positions on any topic. If Hillary had run for president as an R, and Biden had run as a D, Biden and the media would have been painting Hillary as a conservative while he would be considered the liberal. I believe this is part of the point that this article is making.

[

Another example of this type of redefining is "Christian." How many people and churches today are pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, willing to throw real "Christians" in jail, etc., and yet claim to be "Christian?" This is how the muslims claim that everyone in the western society is "Christian." We could almost take your and my discussion and replace "conservative" with "Christian" and I think this helps make my point.

An example:

From unknown: Conservatism has been usurped.

From roamer_1: Nonsense. Conservatism is a way of life.

      Replacing "Conservatism" with "Christian" gives:

From unknown: "Christian" has been usurped.

From roamer_1: Nonsense. "Christian" is a way of life.

]

From roamer_1: The FIRST backlash? Where have you been?

I was making a general statement. The Tea Party was a recent and large backlash of which most people today would recognize.

From roamer_1: Oh, horseshit. If you want an outsider, look to Cruz. Look to Castle.

I voted for Cruz. Cruz was excellent, but is still on the inside, and this is why I believe the people voted for Trump over Cruz. They wanted a total outsider. So now, the ONLY two people that will be president is Hillary or Trump. Cruz is no longer running. Castle is great, but no chance to win.

From roamer_1: Good. Then bring it all down. Right now. Better now than on my kids. If we have become so very faithless that we, as a people, cannot even hold to the truths that our fathers called self-evident... Then we deserve to lose it.

God will certainly give us what we deserve. If we end up with Hillary, I pray that we survive to vote in another 8 years. (I figure Hillary will be in for two terms, that is usually typical, but maybe her health would prevent this.) Her supreme court nominees will be the most leftist liberal we will have ever seen. (I won't discuss the pro/cons of Trump here. This article posted does this well enough.)

From roamer_1: Your vote is your endorsement. That is ALL it can ever be.

I don't believe this to be true. There are many examples and analogies that I could give, but I won't do that here.

From roamer_1: You see what voting for RINOs does to the party and to the Conservative cause, but yet, here you are, defending what is unarguably one of the most liberal Repub candidates for POTUS in the history of the party.
How does that work?

He is a total outsider, only an outsider has the possibility of breaking the stranglehold of corruption by both R's and D's, has given us a list of PRO-LIFE supreme court nominees, is PRO-2nd Amendment, anti-illegal immigration, pro-Christian, etc. etc. I will accept the risk with Trump; compared to the no-risk hardcore leftist Hillary who has threatened to force Christians to leave their faith or she will throw them in jail, bring in more islamicists, steal more of our money, take away everyone's right to 2nd A, surround herself with more corruption, etc. etc. This is the point of this article! I am willing to accept the risk. Hillary is a no-risk, Trump is a risk.