Cruz: I'm voting for Trump

[Mod1]

Pales to the repeated accusations of being Hillary supporters.

I've PM'ed this a couple of times to people either skating on the edge or wondering why their report to us did not warrant action, so I'm going to make this a public post.

Saying someone's actions have the effect of supporting Hillary Clinton (the topic dejure.  Next year it will be someone else) is acceptable, though it may sound rude.  It's because it's the actions of the poster being criticized.  But, saying that because someone's actions have that effect they are therefore supporters of Hillary Clinton is NOT acceptable, because it's criticizing the person, not the actions.

Yes, it's a fine line, often honored in the breach, and imprecise to boot, but we needed a rule that can be evenly, therefore fairly applied.

Thanks,
M1

[Norm Lenhart]

I've PM'ed this a couple of times to people either skating on the edge or wondering why their report to us did not warrant action, so I'm going to make this a public post.

Saying someone's actions have the effect of supporting Hillary Clinton (the topic dejure.  Next year it will be someone else) is acceptable, though it may sound rude.  It's because it's the actions of the poster being criticized.  But, saying that because someone's actions have that effect they are therefore supporters of Hillary Clinton is NOT acceptable, because it's criticizing the person, not the actions.

Yes, it's a fine line, often honored in the breach, and imprecise to boot, but we needed a rule that can be evenly, therefore fairly applied.

Thanks,
M1

As long as that goes both ways, I'm 100% good with it. Primarily because they can't support that position factually and thus will be buried in the rebuttals.

[bigheadfred]

I view as garbled garbage and refuse to accept the misrepresentation that exFReepers are some kind of high falutin' detritus. I am TRASH. Get it right.  And  it exemplifies the reason male appendage enlargement technology is banned in the outer planets region system wide.  You ain't supposed to use a penis pump on Uranus.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't have a comment, I just wanted to make sure nobody missed what @aligncare thinks about a large number of the Members of TBR.  I had missed it until somebody else noticed, I'm so used to the troll behavior being exhibited.

The part that cracks me up about that post was the "not so optimistic" comment. With comments like calling us "free republic refuse" I'd say it is more like no effing way.

@aligncare Suck it up, peaches. There goes the neighborhood.

[Smokin Joe]

And I wonder why he doesn't think reconciliation is possible......   

He hates our guts.  He wouldn't reconcile with those of us he considers to be GARBAGE if his very life depended on it.

Well, if that is his opinion, that tells me what his opinion is worth. 

The rest of us should just go ahead and have a good time anyway! 

[Norm Lenhart]

Well, if that is his opinion, that tells me what his opinion is worth. 

The rest of us should just go ahead and have a good time anyway! 

He should check his privilege and his pronouns. I'm offended. I wish to be addressed as Ze Garbage. oe Zir Garbage.

TRIGGERED!!!!!

[INVAR]

As long as that goes both ways, I'm 100% good with it. Primarily because they can't support that position factually and thus will be buried in the rebuttals.

I think that means we can state the truth that those who vote for liberals, regardless of what party they insist they belong to, are supporting liberals.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think that means we can state the truth that those who vote for liberals, regardless of what party they insist they belong to, are supporting liberals.

That's the way I read the Mod's post.  Actually calling them liberals crosses that line.  I don't see much difference, myself, but that's where they say the line is.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But it does matter. Voting for that someone else, based on party platform and principle (not person, nor the anticipation of a win) will voice a desired direction, will help that party gain ballot access in the future.

I made that comment to @INVAR, and his position seems to be somewhat different from yours.  He argues that we already have gone over the edge.  If that is true, then a nascent, startup conservative third party will have zero chance of ever becoming anything in that environment.  He essentially envisions a total collapse, and whatever conventional political parties exist now won't even be around when/if we merge from the other side.

You -- I assume -- envision a post Hillary 2020 or 2024 as something that still would be sufficiently democratic to permit a staunch conservative party to exist and thrive.  While I personally don't agree with that, it at least presents a practical rationale for voting third party right now.

[Night Hides Not]

I made that comment to @INVAR, and his position seems to be somewhat different from yours.  He argues that we already have gone over the edge.  If that is true, then a nascent, startup conservative third party will have zero chance of ever becoming anything in that environment.  He essentially envisions a total collapse, and whatever conventional political parties exist now won't even be around when/if we merge from the other side.

You -- I assume -- envision a post Hillary 2020 or 2024 as something that still would be sufficiently democratic to permit a staunch conservative party to exist and thrive.  While I personally don't agree with that, it at least presents a practical rationale for voting third party right now.

I admit to being less patient than you. I think a conservative third party could make noise in 2018, no matter who wins. The GOP has maintained their grip on power, thanks to PO'ed TEA Partiers that come out to vote in droves during off year elections, just look at 2010 & 2014. If our energies, and votes, are channeled elsewhere, the GOP would conceivably lose their grip on power.

Is there sufficient time after November? That's a problem.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Have you thought to check the mirror? Just because they aren't wearing their colors don't mean they aren't in the gang. And people wonder why so many high intelligent and educated Jews didn't get out in time.

Yes, I have looked in the mirror.  And I don't see a brownshirt, uniformed or not, staring back it me.  But you're free to have whatever opinion you'd like of me.

You also have ducked the question by focusing on the existence/non-existence of uniforms as being the core of the point.  It isn't, and I've made that clear repeatedly.  Uniformed or not, where are the violent, pro-Trump street thugs massing, disrupting opposition rallies, rioting, etc.?

I have not seen it.  What I've seen is people -- including but not limited to Trump supporters -- being violently attacked by leftist gangs.  BLM, latino extremists, leftist goons shutting down rallies/speaking engagements by conservatives....  That's what I've seen actually happening.  Not just "concerns" that some Trump supporters might go over the edge, but comparatively large numbers of Hillary/leftist supporters that have already gone over that edge and engaged in actual violence.

I dislike some of the stupid, over the top rhetoric from Trump supporters as well.  But let's be realistic -- a lot of those folks are in more rural areas, and are more off by themselves.  They don't appear to be rioting or trying to shut down Hillary rallies.  The pro-Hillary goons on the left -- whether BLM, students, whatever, often mass in urban areas in which many of us at least work/travel to.  They present an actual threat of physical harm to us, and carry the ability to commit high-volume election fraud, which again is something we haven't seen from Trump supporters.

So I get the distaste for Trump and many of his supporters..  I'm just kind of mystified that so many apparently don't see that there is an order of magnitude of difference as to which group currently presents the greatest immediate threat to liberty and our democratic system.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I admit to being less patient than you.....

Actually, I think you're more patient than I am.  I think we're running out of time really quickly, and there isn't time for a third party.[/quote]

Is there sufficient time after November? That's a problem.

What I worry about specifically is something that doesn't get discussed here too much, and that is how the left views the legitimacy of political dissent and speech.  They would love nothing better than to overturn Citizens United and eliminate so-called "corporate speech", because that is one of the few avenues conservatives have to get their message out given the left's domination of the mainstream media.  Democrats on the FEC have been pushing to regulated political speech on the web, including things like Drudge, blogs, etc..  They want to return to the Fairness Doctrine, etc., which pretty much would wipe out talk radio - which is just about the only media format in which we have an advantage.

What they need is one more vote on the Supreme Court, and probably a few more years stacking the bureaucracy and lower courts.  Conservative speech will start becoming "hate speech", and we won't ever get our message out.  And we'll also have lost pretty much an entire generation of young people to leftist thought pushed down from a hard-left government, Department of Education, and Justice Department.  So, winning the midterms won't be enough.   Congress has already ceded too much of its power to administrative agencies, and those, coupled with control of the Courts, would let the President get most of his agenda through without Congress.  And the resultant legalization of aliens and extension of the franchise to them would eat away pretty quickly at any Congressional majorities we'd happen to maintain.

I think we've all gotten a bit too used to thinking we can survive leftist Presidents.  The only reason it hasn't gotten much worse is that we've essentially been able to stymie them through the Supreme Court since Reagan's court appointments in the 80's.  But with Scalia dead, we're staring in the face a 5-4 (at least) progressive, activist majority, with much of the lower court system stacked as well.  And I haven't seen a cogent argument for how conservatism can survive that.

[Norm Lenhart]

That's the way I read the Mod's post.  Actually calling them liberals crosses that line.  I don't see much difference, myself, but that's where they say the line is.

Then the line is a farce. Because a person that votes/empowers a liberal is not anything other than a liberal. Words mean things whether a Mod, a Forum or anything else wants to say otherwise.

There is a massive difference between calling a liberal a liberal and calling someone refusing to vote for Trump a Hillary supporter. A man that fishes is a fisherman. A man that rapes is a rapist and a man that backs a person that wants Planned Parenthood funded, wants Obamacare 'fixed', wants Trannies to invade a ladies room, wants touchback Amnesty and all the rest, is a liberal. So if we can't speak the truth, which that very much is and I defy ANYONE to prove with a straight face that it isn't, there is little point in playing pretend. We may as well not speak at all and hand an open field to the liberals.

I can just see the people of the founders day sitting around saying "You know George, we shouldn't call Loyalists "Loyalists" just because they back the Crown. Someone might get offended!"

[XenaLee]

As long as that goes both ways, I'm 100% good with it. Primarily because they can't support that position factually and thus will be buried in the rebuttals.

Then again....why even bother with any rebuttals?  When the accusation is so lame and absurd (and it is)....it deserves and requires no response.  You don't argue with an insane person or with a child having a tantrum, do you?   

[bigheadfred]

I made that comment to @INVAR, and his position seems to be somewhat different from yours.  He argues that we already have gone over the edge.  If that is true, then a nascent, startup conservative third party will have zero chance of ever becoming anything in that environment.  He essentially envisions a total collapse, and whatever conventional political parties exist now won't even be around when/if we merge from the other side.

You -- I assume -- envision a post Hillary 2020 or 2024 as something that still would be sufficiently democratic to permit a staunch conservative party to exist and thrive.  While I personally don't agree with that, it at least presents a practical rationale for voting third party right now.

I don't think we are over the edge yet. We still have the power to vote. My objection is I view that the advent of technology has opened the door to corruption of the system. I would insist on voter ID and paper ballots. There is nothing wrong with our government, i.e., a Constitutional Republic. It is the people running it that are the problem. I, personally, will not turn on what I believe by voting for Trump. Given that either he or hillary will be POTUS I do have the idea that he would best serve the interests of the U.S. better than she. So my main focus is voting down ticket. And holding my reps feet to the fire in the hope they will hold his feet to the fire.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

THe thread that won't die...

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I don't think we are over the edge yet. We still have the power to vote. My objection is I view that the advent of technology has opened the door to corruption of the system. I would insist on voter ID and paper ballots. There is nothing wrong with our government, i.e., a Constitutional Republic.

I agree with all that.  The problem is that the Democrats/left don't.  And if Hillary gets in there, and it's a Hillary-appointed Justice Department addressing voter issues, and a Hillary-dominated bureaucracy handling immigration....things will go in exactly the opposite direction from what you and I want.  Not only will the Justice Department deliberately refrain from going after voter fraud, they'll prosecute/oppose in the (leftist-dominated) courts all reasonable efforts by states to ensure the integrity of the vote.  We've already seen that.  When a state attempts to introduce measures to limit fraud, DOJ files suits, and generally wins.

How does all that not get worse if she wins?

It is the people running it that are the problem. I, personally, will not turn on what I believe by voting for Trump. Given that either he or hillary will be POTUS I do have the idea that he would best serve the interests of the U.S. better than she. So my main focus is voting down ticket. And holding my reps feet to the fire in the hope they will hold his feet to the fire.

I understand your choice.  I'd suggest, though, that our representatives are going to be powerless to do anything about that if both the courts and bureaucracy are on her side.  Voting "rights" have largely been taken over by the courts, and by the administrative/regulatory types in the executive branch.

[Cyber Liberty]

Then the line is a farce. Because a person that votes/empowers a liberal is not anything other than a liberal. Words mean things whether a Mod, a Forum or anything else wants to say otherwise.

There is a massive difference between calling a liberal a liberal and calling someone refusing to vote for Trump a Hillary supporter. A man that fishes is a fisherman. A man that rapes is a rapist and a man that backs a person that wants Planned Parenthood funded, wants Obamacare 'fixed', wants Trannies to invade a ladies room, wants touchback Amnesty and all the rest, is a liberal. So if we can't speak the truth, which that very much is and I defy ANYONE to prove with a straight face that it isn't, there is little point in playing pretend. We may as well not speak at all and hand an open field to the liberals.

I can just see the people of the founders day sitting around saying "You know George, we shouldn't call Loyalists "Loyalists" just because they back the Crown. Someone might get offended!"

Let me make sure I have this straight:  It's OK to troll people and call them names if you are on the "right side?"

[Just_Victor]

THe thread that won't die...

I started to post yesterday, "Are we ready to bury this thread?" 

[Norm Lenhart]

Then again....why even bother with any rebuttals?  When the accusation is so lame and absurd (and it is)....it deserves and requires no response.  You don't argue with an insane person or with a child having a tantrum, do you?   

We are in the place we are because people refused to call a spade a spade and the liberals just kept pushing their lies to everyone. There is no functional difference between not calling a liberal a liberal because other liberals will throw themselves on the floor in a screaming fit here and conservatives not being allowed to speak in venues across the country because liberals might throw themselves on the floor in a screaming fit. Is there? And That hasn't seemed to work out well for America.

Besides, isn't shutting down dissent just what Jim Robinson did because the liberals there were OFFENDED when being called what they were? THEY didn't want to face the truth of their actions either.

Funny. It's the same people bitching in both places. So I guess conservatism loses ANOTHER forum to placate liberalism.

[Norm Lenhart]

Let me make sure I have this straight:  It's OK to troll people and call them names if you are on the "right side?"

No. It's perfectly fine to speak the truth. Is there truth in calling a conservative a Hillary Supporter? No.

Is there truth in calling someone empowering liberalism and liberals a liberal? Yes.

So your problem doesn't seem to be with me. Let me see if "I" have this right...Your problem is with the truth.

[Sanguine]

I don't think we are over the edge yet. We still have the power to vote. My objection is I view that the advent of technology has opened the door to corruption of the system. I would insist on voter ID and paper ballots. There is nothing wrong with our government, i.e., a Constitutional Republic. It is the people running it that are the problem. I, personally, will not turn on what I believe by voting for Trump. Given that either he or hillary will be POTUS I do have the idea that he would best serve the interests of the U.S. better than she. So my main focus is voting down ticket. And holding my reps feet to the fire in the hope they will hold his feet to the fire.

I think we are.  We're in that slo-mo Coyote falling off the edge of the cliff and right before he starts windmilling trying to get back onto the cliff.  The momentum is against us. 

We were almost there by 2008, and 0 and his handlers have led us off the cliff. 

[bigheadfred]

I agree with all that.  The problem is that the Democrats/left don't.  And if Hillary gets in there, and it's a Hillary-appointed Justice Department addressing voter issues, and a Hillary-dominated bureaucracy handling immigration....things will go in exactly the opposite direction from what you and I want.  Not only will the Justice Department deliberately refrain from going after voter fraud, they'll prosecute/oppose in the (leftist-dominated) courts all reasonable efforts by states to ensure the integrity of the vote.  We've already seen that.  When a state attempts to introduce measures to limit fraud, DOJ files suits, and generally wins.

How does all that not get worse if she wins?

I understand your choice.  I'd suggest, though, that our representatives are going to be powerless to do anything about that if both the courts and bureaucracy are on her side.  Voting "rights" have largely been taken over by the courts, and by the administrative/regulatory types in the executive branch.

With a hillary win it will go a lot faster towards applying the 2nd. There will be that moment to decide if you die on your knees or die on your feet. #Free Lives Matter

[XenaLee]

I think we are.  We're in that slo-mo Coyote falling off the edge of the cliff and right before he starts windmilling trying to get back onto the cliff.  The momentum is against us. 

We were almost there by 2008, and 0 and his handlers have led us off the cliff. 

Lol......here's the GOP & Co. now supporting Trump.....

[Norm Lenhart]

With a hillary win it will go a lot faster towards applying the 2nd. There will be that moment to decide if you die on your knees or die on your feet. #Free Lives Matter

If the 2nd is anyones hope, they may as well pack it in now. A nation filled with 'patriots' that cant stand anonymously in a voting booth and cast a vote for anyone but a liberal isn't going to do anything but cower in a corner when boots hit the ground.