The Trump Era and Dumb Conservatism: When “Owning the Libs” Is Your Only Goal

[skeeter]

@skeeter

Power without virtue and morals leads to a bad place.  The Founders knew it and wrote about it.

I understand that. Perhaps where we differ is I see no equivalence between the president, a flawed man, and the left, which I believe is in service of evil.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Since then, many who claim the GOP label have had only one goal: owning the liberals.

That's wildly unfair.  Yes, the emotional satisfaction of "owning the liberals" is surely one reason people supported Trump.  But it was never just a desire to "win" for its own sake.  Many of us wanted to stop the appointment of activist left-wing judges, the continued targeting of conservative groups by the FEC, the attacks on the Second Amendment, the ceding of foreign policy to the EU and UN, the continued push from Washington to force racial and gender identity politics down our throats, attempts to open our borders with mass legalization coupled with the grant of voting rights to millions of socialist-leaning illegals....The list pretty much goes on and on.

Exactly what was wrong with voting for the candidate most likely to prevent those things from happening?  Is a desire to win on those issues really so horrible?  And honestly, based on the outrage with which the left has attacked the guy who has impeded that agenda, I truly believe that if they'd have won in 2016, that would have been it.  They would have implemented structural changes through executive actions and compliant courts that would have stacked the electoral deck so high that conservatives would have had zero chance in future elections.  It would have been the tipping point.

People can agree or disagree as to how likely it was that Trump would stop that agenda, but the desire of so many voters to prevent that crap from continuing and even accelerating does not deserve to be trivialized as just a desire to "win" or "own the liberals".

[skeeter]

That's wildly unfair.  Yes, the emotional satisfaction of "owning the liberals" is surely one reason people supported Trump.  But it was never just a desire to "win" for its own sake.  Many of us wanted to stop the appointment of activist left-wing judges, the continued targeting of conservative groups by the FEC, the attacks on the Second Amendment, the ceding of foreign policy to the EU and UN, the continued push from Washington to force racial and gender identity politics down our throats, attempts to open our borders with mass legalization coupled with the grant of voting rights to millions of socialist-leaning illegals....The list pretty much goes on and on.

Exactly what was wrong with voting for the candidate most likely to prevent those things from happening?  Is a desire to win on those issues really so horrible?  And honestly, based on the outrage with which the left has attacked the guy who has impeded that agenda, I truly believe that if they'd have won in 2016, that would have been it.  They would have implemented structural changes through executive actions and compliant courts that would have stacked the electoral deck so high that conservatives would have had zero chance in future elections.  It would have been the tipping point.

People can agree or disagree as to how likely it was that Trump would stop that agenda, but the desire of so many voters to prevent that crap from continuing and even accelerating does not deserve to be trivialized as just a desire to "win" or "own the liberals".

Thank you.

[aligncare]

That's wildly unfair.  Yes, the emotional satisfaction of "owning the liberals" is surely one reason people supported Trump.  But it was never just a desire to "win" for its own sake.  Many of us wanted to stop the appointment of activist left-wing judges, the continued targeting of conservative groups by the FEC, the attacks on the Second Amendment, the ceding of foreign policy to the EU and UN, the continued push from Washington to force racial and gender identity politics down our throats, attempts to open our borders with mass legalization coupled with the grant of voting rights to millions of socialist-leaning illegals....The list pretty much goes on and on.

Exactly what was wrong with voting for the candidate most likely to prevent those things from happening?  Is a desire to win on those issues really so horrible?  And honestly, based on the outrage with which the left has attacked the guy who has impeded that agenda, I truly believe that if they'd have won in 2016, that would have been it.  They would have implemented structural changes through executive actions and compliant courts that would have stacked the electoral deck so high that conservatives would have had zero chance in future elections.  It would have been the tipping point.

People can agree or disagree as to how likely it was that Trump would stop that agenda, but the desire of so many voters to prevent that crap from continuing and even accelerating does not deserve to be trivialized as just a desire to "win" or "own the liberals".

My vote for President was a values vote. I valued good government so I voted for Donald Trump...it was no more diabolical than that.

[Bigun]

My vote for President was a values vote. I valued good government so I voted for Donald Trump...it was no more diabolical than that.

I did not vote for the President in either the primary or the general last time but if he continues to perform as he has to date I sure as hell will vote for him next time if he still wants the job.

[DCPatriot]

I did not vote for the President in either the primary or the general last time but if he continues to perform as he has to date I sure as hell will vote for him next time if he still wants the job.

And we hope and pray that there are millions more voters who feel the same as you do.   

[TomSea]

I did not vote for the President in either the primary or the general last time but if he continues to perform as he has to date I sure as hell will vote for him next time if he still wants the job.

His popularity keeps on going up. He was elected largely because of the Evangelicals, so I'm very supportive of him on this front.  Those who don't support his platform should slither back to the DU.

[INVAR]

Those who don't support his platform should slither back to the DU.

Oh yes, because deficit spending in the TRILLIONS for two years, followed by punitive tariff taxes on the American consumer followed by billion dollar bailouts of farmers hurt by Trump's trade war - ARE SUCH CONSERVATIVE PLATFORM IDEALS..... NOT.

Trump's platform on taxes and bailouts comes right out of the DU.

[Wingnut]

I did not vote for the President in either the primary or the general last time but if he continues to perform as he has to date I sure as hell will vote for him next time if he still wants the job.

Trump’s 2016 observation that he could shoot people on Fifth Avenue and still not lose votes remains as valid as ever.  In fact he may have gained a few like me.

[Night Hides Not]

Oh yes, because deficit spending in the TRILLIONS for two years, followed by punitive tariff taxes on the American consumer followed by billion dollar bailouts of farmers hurt by Trump's trade war - ARE SUCH CONSERVATIVE PLATFORM IDEALS..... NOT.

Trump's platform on taxes and bailouts comes right out of the DU.

To be fair, Trump’s platform is constantly evolving. All a part of playing six dimensional chess.

[musiclady]

Trump’s 2016 observation that he could shoot people on Fifth Avenue and still not lose votes remains as valid as ever.  In fact he may have gained a few like me.

I'm glad you revealed that about yourself.

I've always considered that to be the sign of weakness and complete lack of discernment.

So if it was what convinced you to become a dedicated Trump supporter.......well................   

[Wingnut]

I'm glad you revealed that about yourself.

I've always considered that to be the sign of weakness and complete lack of discernment.

So if it was what convinced you to become a dedicated Trump supporter.......well................

[musiclady]

Is that also a sign of lack of discernment?

Because there is certainly no logic in it, whatsoever.   

Again, if you decided to support Trump because he so arrogantly stated that his followers were abjectly stupid and valueless enough to follow him even if he committed murder on a public street, then it doesn't say much for your ability to think cogent thoughts, now, does it?

[Wingnut]

Is that also a sign of lack of discernment?

Because there is certainly no logic in it, whatsoever.   

Again, if you decided to support Trump because he so arrogantly stated that his followers were abjectly stupid and valueless enough to follow him even if he committed murder on a public street, then it doesn't say much for your ability to think cogent thoughts, now, does it?

Go insult someone else.  I don't care to get down in the gutter with the likes of you. 

[musiclady]

Go insult someone else.  I don't care to get down in the gutter with the likes of you.

LOL!

If you can only respond with silly gifs and insults instead of a legitimate, thoughtful defense for your comments, go for it.


My observation is that supporting Trump because he insulted both your intelligence and character doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense.

So be it.  It is what it is.

[Silver Pines]

I understand that. Perhaps where we differ is I see no equivalence between the president, a flawed man, and the left, which I believe is in service of evil.

@skeeter

Fair enough.

[roamer_1]

People can agree or disagree as to how likely it was that Trump would stop that agenda, but the desire of so many voters to prevent that crap from continuing and even accelerating does not deserve to be trivialized as just a desire to "win" or "own the liberals".

Yes, I do think it can and should be trivialized. No wonder all all y'all treat him like a sugar daddy or some kind of orange superhero... All y'all have your hand out every bit the same as the liberals (just looking for different things).

I swear, it's the same dang thing that happened over Palin. This starry-eyed saccharine investment in a mere man (and a poor example of one at that) is wholly foreign to me, and is seriously revolting (and I do mean that - true revulsion). Very much like Palin, whose short record showed anything BUT Conservatism, had anyone actually bothered to look. But no, everyone gets swept up into the propaganda show, and then WON'T look.

I have no idea how otherwise sound thinking people can be caused to suspend disbelief, and become so utterly hypnotized. There is nothing with which to guarantee your 'belief'. His record, like Palin's, is out there for anyone to find. But all y'all prefer the pimp show version. I swear it's like all y'all watch wrestling and roller derby, and believe every minute of it. Hopey-changey has nothing on all y'all.

I don't care that you do, by the way... Just quit calling it Conservative, because it flatly is not. Conservatism is not agenda driven, with dog-whistle issues and confetti cannons. Conservatism doesn't need a propaganda arm.

Conservatism is about principle things. It is those principle things that will guarantee what you want in your agenda, not some liberal carnival barker from New York City. If you must give up those truths in order for your agenda to succeed, you have already lost far more than you will ever gain.

But that's what you'll do... And ten years from now you'll be every bit as adamant in your orange hero as the people who defend Bush and Palin. And in the mean time, we'll go ever farther to the left, because it is the bare fact that returning to the truth is the only thing that will right this nation.