Donald Trump Unveils Child Care Subsidy Aimed at Women, Suburban Swing Voters (Mandatory Paid Maternity Leave)

[LMAO]

Mr. Limbaugh is still a solid conservative, he is just not a doctrinaire conservative who insists that candidates et al, must pass some sort of rigid purity test in order to be considered a respectably serious-minded political mind.

Rush and Hannity, are Republicans, not liberals or conservatives. IOWs, they only oppose the expansion of government and deficits and debt when the Democrats are in charge.

[RoosGirl]

Rush and Hannity, are Republicans, not liberals or conservatives. IOWs, they only oppose the expansion of government and deficits and debt when the Democrats are in charge.

Like most republicans in office.

[LMAO]

This has Ivanka's grubby hands all over it.

Terrible policy proposal.

Every father wants to do something special for their little girls. So in that regard what Trump is doing could be considered noble.

However, with a 20 trillion dollar debt that's expect to continue its growth and with deficits that are on the rise again, he should stick to buying her a pony

[Vulcan]

Any Trump supporter using the "Eleventh Commandment" to stifle criticism of him while loving the guy who violated it more than ANY candidate has ever done, is a first class hypocrite.

@musiclady

Great point.  Note also how the Trump faithful have in the past and continue to be critical of Ted Cruz. 

Trump supporters worship one of the biggest hypocrites in politics, it makes sense they would be hypocrites themselves. 

[LateForLunch]

You're the fanatic.  Just because we don't carry pom poms for everything Buckley or Reagan ever did or said, does not mean we "reject" them.   It appears, unlike you, we are thinking people who don't follow and support people when we don't agree with them.   

"The only time I was wrong was the time I thought I was wrong."

I stated that I would not post further on this topic/thread but I felt compelled to make one follow-up. This statement in quotes, of all the predictably vituperative, subtly insulting, defensive, personal remarks in response to my last post, was the most poignant and revealing. NOT ONE MENTION OF THE NATION OR ITS BEST INTERESTS - every single response was in defense of someone's ego or abstract "principles" which you are protecting like a 'Raptor protects its eggs.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Buckley would have followed his own rule, you may be assured. The opinions of the asinine traitorous lunatics who now run the magazine that follows his namesake notwithstanding. Standing on principles, eh? All of your "principles" boil down to this - you are using personal distaste for someone to allow you to fall back on a doctrinaire position where you abnegate your responsibility to exercise your franchise and contribute your few electrons to the current that will eventually light up one candidate as the winner or go to ground and allow the other candidate - a monstrous leftist piglet of the worst description, to gain more voltage and light up.
 
At least Hill-O-lies voters are actually telling themselves the truth - that they are voting for her. You lovely people are all telling yourselves that you are "standing on principles" when all you are doing in reality is helping to enable the election of Hill-O-Lies and lying to yourselves about it. Brilliant!!

I admit to being a fanatic - I am a fanatic about helping and defending the best interests of the United States of America, even if it means taking some risk on a questionable candidate to avoid one who is beyond all question a walking nightmare without peer.

"It is impossible for one to conceive of any morality superior to one's own." CG Jung
Call me whatever you like, but I will be thinking not of defending my ego or my "ideological purity" I will be thinking of how to defend the best interests of this nation by taking action - not coming up with some intellectualized excuse for sitting on my thumbs. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I stated that I would not post further on this topic/thread but I felt compelled to make one follow-up. This statement in quotes, of all the predictably vituperative, subtly insulting, defensive, personal remarks in response to my last post, was the most poignant and revealing. NOT ONE MENTION OF THE NATION OR ITS BEST INTERESTS - every single response was in defense of someone's ego or abstract "principles" which you are protecting like a 'Raptor protects its eggs.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Buckley would have followed his own rule, you may be assured. The opinions of the asinine traitorous lunatics who now run the magazine that follows his namesake notwithstanding. Standing on principles, eh? All of your "principles" boil down to this - you are using personal distaste for someone to allow you to fall back on a doctrinaire position where you abnegate your responsibility to exercise your franchise and contribute your few electrons to the current that will eventually light up one candidate as the winner or go to ground and allow the other candidate - a monstrous leftist piglet of the worst description, to gain more voltage and light up.
 
At least Hill-O-lies voters are actually telling themselves the truth - that they are voting for her. You lovely people are all telling yourselves that you are "standing on principles" when all you are doing in reality is helping to enable the election of Hill-O-Lies and lying to yourselves about it. Brilliant!!

I admit to being a fanatic - I am a fanatic about helping and defending the best interests of the United States of America, even if it means taking some risk on a questionable candidate to avoid one who is beyond all question a walking nightmare without peer.

"It is impossible for one to conceive of any morality superior to one's own." CG Jung
Call me whatever you like, but I will be thinking not of defending my ego or my "ideological purity" I will be thinking of how to defend the best interests of this nation by taking action - not coming up with some intellectualized excuse for sitting on my thumbs.

How in the word can we expect violating our principles and doing what we know to be wrong to be in the best interest of the country. They are one in the same.

[GrouchoTex]

I stated that I would not post further on this topic/thread but I felt compelled to make one follow-up. This statement in quotes, of all the predictably vituperative, subtly insulting, defensive, personal remarks in response to my last post, was the most poignant and revealing. NOT ONE MENTION OF THE NATION OR ITS BEST INTERESTS - every single response was in defense of someone's ego or abstract "principles" which you are protecting like a 'Raptor protects its eggs.

Constitutional conservatism is what is at stake, and Trump wants no part of it.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Buckley would have followed his own rule, you may be assured.

I don't know how you can speak for Buckley, but hey, why not? I could just as easily say he would not, and be right.

The opinions of the asinine traitorous lunatics who now run the magazine that follows his namesake notwithstanding. Standing on principles, eh? All of your "principles" boil down to this - you are using personal distaste for someone to allow you to fall back on a doctrinaire position where you abnegate your responsibility to exercise your franchise and contribute your few electrons to the current that will eventually light up one candidate as the winner or go to ground and allow the other candidate - a monstrous leftist piglet of the worst description, to gain more voltage and light up.

I repeat, Constitutional conservatism is what is at stake, and Trump wants no part of it. This is not personal.
 
At least Hill-O-lies voters are actually telling themselves the truth - that they are voting for her. You lovely people are all telling yourselves that you are "standing on principles" when all you are doing in reality is helping to enable the election of Hill-O-Lies and lying to yourselves about it. Brilliant!!

Policies like this one the thread is proof that Trump is a lot more like Hillary, than, say, Buckley?

I admit to being a fanatic - I am a fanatic about helping and defending the best interests of the United States of America, even if it means taking some risk on a questionable candidate to avoid one who is beyond all question a walking nightmare without peer.

Our point is that Trump IS a known quantity, and has been known since the 70's, and millions have just flat refused to believe it.

"It is impossible for one to conceive of any morality superior to one's own." CG Jung

Boy, I'll, say, and I quote "This statement in quotes, of all the predictably vituperative, subtly insulting, defensive, personal remarks in response to my last post, was the most poignant and revealing." How's about "asinine traitorous lunatics"?

Call me whatever you like, but I will be thinking not of defending my ego or my "ideological purity" I will be thinking of how to defend the best interests of this nation by taking action - not coming up with some intellectualized excuse for sitting on my thumbs.

If standing up for what one believes is being an egotist, I am an egotist. I will not support one liberal over another. What is the point?

[Night Hides Not]

If standing up for what one believes is being an egotist, I am an egotist. I will not support one liberal over another. What is the point?

I don't consider that "egotism", IMO it's much closer to "rational egoism" as John Galt practiced it.

[GrouchoTex]

I don't consider that "egotism", IMO it's much closer to "rational egoism" as John Galt practiced it.

[Night Hides Not]

I want one of those flags to fly at my house! It will really confuse the neighbors on my block, 80% are Indian. Their kids won't study Texas history until 7th grade, though my kids knew more about the Alamo before they started kindergarten.

[GrouchoTex]

I want one of those flags to fly at my house! It will really confuse the neighbors on my block, 80% are Indian. Their kids won't study Texas history until 7th grade, though my kids knew more about the Alamo before they started kindergarten.

I'd like to have one, too.
We've been to Gonzales a few times over the years.
Nice town.
I like it.

[Sanguine]

I want one of those flags to fly at my house! It will really confuse the neighbors on my block, 80% are Indian. Their kids won't study Texas history until 7th grade, though my kids knew more about the Alamo before they started kindergarten.

You mean you don't have one?

 ^-^

[LateForLunch]

hah hah well, I appreciate everyone's responses ('not nearly as bad as I was predicting) to my challenge.

The only thing I will say in my own defense regarding everything is that I regret calling the publishers/editors of the National Review "lunatics and traitors" because by association that lumps in those who agree with them I suppose. I do not for one second think that any of the posters I have read on this forum are lunatics or traitors. I have no way of knowing National Review's motivations. That is between them and their creator or their conscience. My sincere apologies to our members. Selah.

This is at its root, a genuine classic argument which has been debated before through many elections - the basic question is whether abstaining from voting for a viable candidate  is actually a meaningful act since it is in a proper sense, not acting but refraining from action.

I gauge my own choice on something not very intellectual - something visceral - I vote according to what I believe will frustrate, displease and harm the interests of far-leftists the most. Since chance and risk cannot be removed from the decision, each person must decide for themselves what is an acceptable level of risk in the two options.

The risk of voting for a viable candidate and electing Trump seems less to me than the risk of abstaining (or voting for a non-electable candidate) and thereby helping to elect Hill-O-Lies. The down-side of the former is maybe Trump's not a great president (he's way too shrewd and bright to casually or accidentally start WWIII), but there is some evidence he has some potential for being better than Hill-O-Lies. His verbal behavior is the evidence that he is potentially far better than Hill-O-lies. Verbal behavior is admittedly not much of a difference if you prefer judging by history of overt action, but it's enough for me.

Inaction is not action, any way you cut it.

I can live with helping to elect a president I may not love (since he will have to be better than Hill-O-Lies would likely have been in the eyes of most voters or risk not being reelected) but I have more difficulty helping to elect someone like Hill-O-Lies who has already expressed the capability of, history of and intention to govern like a Marxist despot (whose idea of moving to the center is more toward Trotsky/Bolivar/Alinsky than Lenin/Stalin). 

[roamer_1]

The risk of voting for a viable candidate and electing Trump

Trump is not viable.