20 reasons to join the fight against the Far Left

[Smokin Joe]

That’s funny. I started as a Rubio guy, and shifted to Trump as it became clear no one else had both the guts to stand up to the Left AND the capacity to win. I see all of his flaws, his ego...his blowhard twitter addiction, his self interest, his lack of any ability to constrain his impulsive use of language, his crudeness at times...but the times we are in, and the rabid Socialism we face, call for a “mauler” rather than a “socialite”. So I SEE the whole man, but have the brains to see that with all of those flaws....sometimes because of them...he is the right man to push the conservative agenda forward.

If that’s what you call blind...well...you’re just using hyperbole that is plain wrong. This picture you WANT to be true of those who support President Trump, exists only in your imagination...outside if the rare nut jobs that EVERY candidate has somewhere amongst their supporters (for example the Cruz supporters who thought him the “chosen” one).

IIRC, the whole "chosen one" thing was a National Enquirer article, you know, the publication overseen by David Pecker, long time Trump pal? They did a lot of well timed fictional hit pieces on Cruz (Seven Mistresses, Dad killed JFK, etc.), and somehow I think you will be able to convince me Hillary Clinton is the Virgin Mary reincarnate about ten years before you will ever convince me there was no collusion there. 

Nice try, but we were here, we saw the tweets, the hit pieces, the incontinent prevarication about Cruz (not to mention 'little Marco'), but Cruz caught the most flack, especially after he won Iowa, because Trump rightly perceived him as an electoral threat.
No one had to worship anyone to see that.
It didn't elevate Cruz to beatification, but the smears did drop Trump from my list.
Pity, too, most of Trump's policy stances weren't bad, even if a couple had been lifted from others, but with all that lying during the primaries, they lost credibility with me. We already had a pile of people in Congress who had been supported by the TEA party folks for promising things that it turned out they would not deliver, so I have had a bellyful of liars.  But never before have I been threatened with being branded a traitor, hunted down, or shot because I didn't support someone others considered the presumptive heir to a public office, and the internet is plastered with such from Trump supporters. Few perhaps, but very vocal about that.

By contrast, I do not recall anyone who supported Cruz making similar threats to anyone, except perhaps to assert that if anyone tried to follow through on any such threats that they would vigorously defend self, family, and property by whatever means necessary, something that is a given where I live.

[INVAR]

It's to smear either Reagan or @EasyAce.  Maybe both.

Neither.

It's to loft Trump as Reagan's equal or better.

It's all they have now - the rabid hope that their savior will deliver what they promised themselves he would deliver.

And if not, then to craft new excuses and explain that Reagan was actually worse than Trump on issues.

[Cyber Liberty]

Neither.

It's to loft Trump as Reagan's equal or better.

You sat "ToMAYto," I say "ToMAHto."

[INVAR]

You sat "ToMAYto," I say "ToMAHto."

PoTAYtoe, PohTAT-Oh...... less call da whole ting off...

[txradioguy]

By contrast, I do not recall anyone who supported Cruz making similar threats to anyone, except perhaps to assert that if anyone tried to follow through on any such threats that they would vigorously defend self, family, and property by whatever means necessary, something that is a given where I live.

@Smokin Joe your memory is correct.  But then again true Reagan Conservatives are about the area of ideas and upholding the Constitution...not pitch forks torches and coercion.

[txradioguy]

What's fascinating is that you would make that leap of illogic.  Why would you do that?

@Sanguine you have to remember that this is the same person that yesterday falsely claimed Reagan was a populist.

Logic doesn't go into what she says.

[txradioguy]

It's to smear either Reagan or @EasyAce.  Maybe both.

@Cyber Liberty my vote is both.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Oh the moral narcissism of it all....the surety of your own moral code being superior to the rest of us. Its breathtaking, a fine example of what is the opposite of Jesus teaching about humility. But that aside, just plain full of self righteousnes, self promotion, and a little butthurt over your guy Ted not winning the nomination. This isn't about god or morality...its about you and your feelings. ...

 :thumbsup2: :thumbsup2: :thumbsup2:

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Sanguine you have to remember that this is the same person that yesterday falsely claimed Reagan was a populist.

Logic doesn't go into what she says.

I know you don't like hearing this, that the truth pierces some long-treasured fabrication, but Ronald Reagan was the quintessential populist.

I'm rather surprised you and yours are not all over Donald Trump for plagiarizing  Regan's campaign slogan.   



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjkX_IBYQHw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjkX_IBYQHw



@txradioguy @Sanguine

[aligncare]

Put up an ill-defined and widely misunderstood name like “populism” and use it to frighten the natives. That’s what sleazy politicians do.

But, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Keep watching the constitutional actions Trump takes, not the scary sounding labels democrats and Nevers want to hang him with.

[EasyAce]

It's to smear either Reagan or @EasyAce.  Maybe both.

@Cyber Liberty
It will take a lot more to smear me than one poster attributing to me a remark I quoted.

That said, I certainly don't remember Mr. Reagan as forging a campaign based on public opinion alone,
or deciding that what public opinion demanded, the public should have, and he'd worry about what
that meant afterward. He entered the 1980 race with a decided agenda and sold it to enough voters
to win, never mind that he ran against an incumbent who could no longer sell a different agenda.
It will take a lot more than a poster showing a brief clip of Mr. Reagan speaking the slogan that
Donaldus Minimus appropriated as his own to smear Mr. Reagan, too. (Recall: during the 2016
campaign there were plenty---here and elsewhere---criticising Donaldus Minimus for appropriating
that slogan . . .)

But I do wonder what some would say when remembering Stephen Moore, a conservative economist
and advisor to Donaldus Minimus, saying this saying to a gathering of Republicans shortly after last year's
election: Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the
GOP into a populist working-class party. In some ways this will be good for conservatives and in
other ways possibly frustrating. Emphases, one presumes, on "some."

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty
It will take a lot more to smear me than one poster attributing to me a remark I quoted.

{Snip}

But I do wonder what some would say when remembering Stephen Moore, a conservative economist
and advisor to Donaldus Minimus, saying this saying to a gathering of Republicans shortly after last year's
election: Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the
GOP into a populist working-class party. In some ways this will be good for conservatives and in
other ways possibly frustrating. Emphases, one presumes, on "some."

I jut think definitions are being confused:  "Popular" and "Populous."  They are being conflated on purpose.

[Cyber Liberty]

I jut think definitions are being confused:  "Popular" and "Populist."  They are being conflated on purpose.

[Sanguine]

I jut think definitions are being confused:  "Popular" and "Populous."  They are being conflated on purpose.

QFT

[txradioguy]

@Cyber Liberty
It will take a lot more to smear me than one poster attributing to me a remark I quoted.

That said, I certainly don't remember Mr. Reagan as forging a campaign based on public opinion alone,
or deciding that what public opinion demanded, the public should have, and he'd worry about what
that meant afterward. He entered the 1980 race with a decided agenda and sold it to enough voters
to win, never mind that he ran against an incumbent who could no longer sell a different agenda.
It will take a lot more than a poster showing a brief clip of Mr. Reagan speaking the slogan that
Donaldus Minimus appropriated as his own to smear Mr. Reagan, too. (Recall: during the 2016
campaign there were plenty---here and elsewhere---criticising Donaldus Minimus for appropriating
that slogan . . .)

But I do wonder what some would say when remembering Stephen Moore, a conservative economist
and advisor to Donaldus Minimus, saying this saying to a gathering of Republicans shortly after last year's
election: Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the
GOP into a populist working-class party. In some ways this will be good for conservatives and in
other ways possibly frustrating. Emphases, one presumes, on "some."

That's just it...a lot of what Reagan did was not popular in the public opinion or conventional wisdom polls of the day.

Remember George Will disparaging the "Kamikaze Conservatives" who backed Reagan...Bush 41 himself in the primaries in 1980 disparaging what would become the greatest economic recovery and boom in American history as "voodoo economics".  Mitch McConnell and KKKarl Rove worked against Reagan in the primaries as did a lot of other Republican old bulls still clinging to power inside the Belt Way.

Reagan was Conservative in deeds as well as words.  He continually took the hard right instead of the easy left because in the end it's what was best for the people.  It's the reason why he is so loved and his words going all the way back to "A Time For Choosing" are still so powerful and relevant today.

Had he been populist as he's been accused here of being...he wouldn't have been remembered for his achievements as a campaigner for Goldwater, as a two term Governor and as the most important President the GOP has had second only to Lincoln.

[EasyAce]

I jut think definitions are being confused:  "Popular" and "Populous."  They are being conflated on purpose.

You may be right. Certainly you don't need me to remind you that, even hearing words that once had
clear enough definition, people can and do hear and define them however they damn well please
nowadays. (Remember when it depended on what your definition of "is" was? ;) )

[EasyAce]

That's just it...a lot of what Reagan did was not popular in the public opinion or conventional wisdom polls of the day.

If I've learned nothing else in a lifetime of watching our politics and our baseball, it's that conventional wisdom
one minute becomes the wisdom of a fool the next. 


But then there was the late Murray Kempton: It is difficult for a man who has enjoyed both the taste of our beer
and the flavour of our politics to decide which has become more sour in his lifetime. (And he wrote that in
1962.)

[DiogenesLamp]

Had he been populist as he's been accused here of being...he wouldn't have been remembered for his achievements as a campaigner for Goldwater, as a two term Governor and as the most important President the GOP has had second only to Lincoln.

He was better than Lincoln.   Lincoln should  be remembered as probably the worst  President in History.   No one else killed ~3 million people. 

[Bigun]

He was better than Lincoln.   Lincoln should  be remembered as probably the worst  President in History.   No one else killed ~3 million people.

One of the big reasons I don't visit Washington DC is that there is a HUGE monument there to a tyrant!

[Jazzhead]

He was better than Lincoln.   Lincoln should  be remembered as probably the worst  President in History.   No one else killed ~3 million people.

He saved the Union.  He got rid of the South's abominable institution of slavery.  His major failing was dying too soon to oversee Reconstruction.   

[INVAR]

He saved the Union.  He got rid of the South's abominable institution of slavery.  His major failing was dying too soon to oversee Reconstruction.

All he did was raise an army to invade sovereign states, abolish the 10th Amendment by fiat and establish Washington D.C. as Supreme in order to impose the Beast of Statism via economic warfare and confiscatory taxation to feed upon itself.

Screw the "union".  Socialism has been institutionalized by your 'union' under the control of the federal Beast.

[Mesaclone]

All he did was raise an army to invade sovereign states, abolish the 10th Amendment by fiat and establish Washington D.C. as Supreme in order to impose the Beast of Statism via economic warfare and confiscatory taxation to feed upon itself.

Screw the "union".  Socialism has been institutionalized by your 'union' under the control of the federal Beast.

Clarity at last. I had thought your views were shaped simply by some form of uber-orthodox religious fanaticism and a fundamental misunderstanding of the bible.But it turns out its so much more. Fascinating, to say the least. You might as well join the NFL players and take a knee when you hear the National Anthem if you really believe your own line of "screw the Union".

If you hate Lincoln and believe him a terrible president, which is you're right, you are no conservative...rather...you are a seditionist and a traitor. Benedict Arnold, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest...THESE are your forebearers. Explains a great deal actually.

And FYI, not even a "sovereign state" has the right to hold a race of people in thrall...the evil that was pervasive in the South was a timber in the eye of god and Lincoln could not have been more right in extinguishing that hellish institution and restoring the Union.

[DiogenesLamp]

He saved the Union. 

He transformed the Union and made certain it remained under his control.    He had no right to oppose those member states that wanted to leave.   The Declaration of Independence made it clear that independence was a natural right,  and Lincoln himself had affirmed this principle twice before.   

He got rid of the South's abominable institution of slavery. 

But he had no intention of doing so when he started his war against the South.   He also had no legal right to do so,  but by January of 1863,  he had so much abused the powers of dictatorship that no one would dare tell him he was violating constitutional law.   

His major failing was dying too soon to oversee Reconstruction.

His major failing was killing nearly 3 million people to cement his control on power,  and transforming the relationships between the States and the Federal government from one of voluntary participation to one of coerced obedience to central authority.    "These States"  became "the State."   


The "new nation"  which the founders "brought forth upon this continent"  was based on the principle that people had a right to independence.   Lincoln revoked that principle.   

[DCPatriot]

[DCPatriot]