LIZ PEEK: Herschel Walker just wrote Donald Trump's political obituary

[Fishrrman]

"Conservatism" started to degenerate downward the moment that William F. Buckley sought to "reform" and re-define it.

[sneakypete]

   I have worked for some of the biggest corporations on this planet @sneakypete and though I took the paycheck they never bought my soul.

@corbe

Then you never reached upper management.

[sneakypete]

This is so silly.   Some of the most pro-America patriots were once liberals.  Ronald Reagan's at the top of this list.

@Right_in_Virginia

Reagan was the exception,not the rule.

Besides,he was just a freaking actor,not a studio head.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

In exactly the same way Tumpy did = Falsely.

@roamer_1

HorseHillary!

You just hate Trump because he is wealthy,period.

[Hoodat]

As long as he picks someone the senate will approve. Certainly not anyone who might upset any apple carts. @Hoodat

The point is that the President alone makes the pick.  And he can later fire that pick if he so chooses.  And even without Senate approval, an interim AG can still run the Justice Dept.

[sneakypete]

Understood @Smokin Joe   

But, stop the clock at 1988 ----- and one finds the blueprint for advancing conservatism as a national political platform where it sat untouched ---  until Donald Trump dusted it off and brought back "Make America Great Again" to patriots waiting decades for it.

Post-Reagan conservatives still think they know better.  It is why they are unsuccessful.

@Smokin Joe

Well,in THEIR defense it IS hard to think positively because when your head is up your ass everything is going to seem dark and gloomy. Not to mention smell bad.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Again, your ignorance is showing. As I have told you before, Reagan ALWAYS was pro-life. The Therapeutic Abortion Act was designed to severely curtail abortions in California.

REAGAN WAS ALWAYS PRO-LIFE.

Could be the man was, who really knows------  but, it's not how he governed.  Hence, his apology before his 1980 run for president.

Reagan would publicly declare that signing the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act was a “mistake” and that he supported overruling Roe v. Wade. Apologizing for his part liberalizing abortion laws in California helped establish Reagan’s reputation as a father of the modern anti-abortion movement—and helped him win the 1980 Presidential election.

https://time.com/6047987/peanuts-history-reagan-abortion/

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

Reagan was the exception,not the rule.

Besides,he was just a freaking actor,not a studio head.

True, Reagan wasn't a studio head @sneakypete    He was, in addition to being an actor,  a union leader who called union membership ‘One Of The Most Elemental Human Rights’   -----  during the "Ronald Reagan, the Younger Years" period.   

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

HorseHillary!

You just hate Trump because he is wealthy,period.

Bullcrap, @sneakypete ... I care nothing for wealth. I don't give a single shit for anything Tumpy has. And never did.

[roamer_1]

Could be the man was, who really knows------  but, it's not how he governed.  Hence, his apology before his 1980 run for president.

a DAMNABLE LIE. As I have explained more than once. At this point, it can only be purposeful... As I had surmised.

[Hoodat]

a DAMNABLE LIE. As I have explained more than once. At this point, it can only be purposeful... As I had surmised.

What once were vices are now habits.

[roamer_1]

What once were vices are now habits.

So it seems.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Reagan was moderate enough to appeal more broadly, I get that. But kindly keep in mind that if/when the political pendulum swings back from loony-land, the keepers of the flame of original Constitutional intent will be the Conservatives. That the principles embraced by Conservatives seem "extreme" is only a measure of how far this nation has strayed from that original intent, the Constitution, and Mr Franklin's Republic, which, as a nation, we have not kept.

The thought that the reason that Conservative principles seem so "extreme" is that the Media, educational system, and publishers have waged war on those principles since WWII (and even before, but more subtly) and have managed to move the perception of 'normal' so far to the left. Consider the things that are commonplace or actively spoken about in the public fora which would have brought obscenity charges in the 1960s, and you may get a feel for just how much of a change has transpired. The stake of Conservatism didn't move, the social tide went out. It will come back.

IMO conservatism is not extreme.  I think it is the intuitive bond between all American patriots  ---- which is why I find it inexplicable that post-Reagan conservative political leaders, pundits, editors allowed --- heck, helped ---  conservatism morph into something so disconnected from American citizens  --- providing no strategy, no goals, no apparent stamina for victory over our political adversaries.

It's been almost 35 years since Reagan left office and today's conservatves stlll have only Reagan's memory to hitch their political wagons to.  I wish they could understand how deeply this disgraces the inheritance they're claiming.

@Smokin Joe

[sneakypete]

IMO conservatism is not extreme.  I think it is the intuitive bond between all American patriots  ---- which is why I find it inexplicable that post-Reagan conservative political leaders, pundits, editors allowed --- heck, helped ---  conservatism morph into something so disconnected from American citizens  --- providing no strategy, no goals, no apparent stamina for victory over our political adversaries.

It's been almost 35 years since Reagan left office and today's conservatves stlll have only Reagan's memory to hitch their political wagons to.  I wish they could understand how deeply this disgraces the inheritance they're claiming.

@Smokin Joe

@Right_in_Virginia

I agree. Somehow,conservatism morphed into fascism because it's main focus seemed to be on cutting taxes.

Yes,that IS a major part of a traditional conservative stance,but it is not the main focus. Or at least it shouldn't be.

In MY alleged mind,the main focus should be on individual freedoms versus the power of government.

And yes,cutting taxes is and SHOULD be a part of that,but not the major focus by any stretch of the imagination. If the government would focus more on spending public money on infastructure and other neccesssary issues instead of supporting the welfare state,there would soon be less need for higher taxes.

Support industries that hire employees,and soon there would be plenty of public money taken in and less need for issues like welfare.

I don't know about anyone else,but I do know that I was MUCH happier back when I had a job to go to every day than I am now,sitting around the house and looking for things to be pissed about in order to make me feel alive and that I have  something to do.

[Right_in_Virginia]

a DAMNABLE LIE. As I have explained more than once. At this point, it can only be purposeful... As I had surmised.

I think the outcomes and apology speak to Reagan's governing mistake.  I give sincere respect to the man for the courage of his transparency and his move (back?) to the right on the issue of abortion.

You do not.

Let's be adults and agree to disagree.   

[Hoodat]

Why not go by what Reagan actually believed instead of some false recharacterization of him 60 years later in order to prop up someone else?

[roamer_1]

I think the outcomes and apology speak to Reagan's governing mistake.  I give sincere respect to the man for the courage of his transparency and his move (back?) to the right on the issue of abortion.

You do not.

Let's be adults and agree to disagree.   

Horseshit. I will do no such thing with such a calumny. Because all I need do is stand, and invite any who will to go read the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act which will prove the veracity of my claim - Something you could have done all along.

Any who would will see the truth, and any who won't ain't worth any alliance.

And by the way, I have defended this same point against Bushites and Romulans who , among others, did the very same thing for the very same reason... Just another clown in a line of posers, seeking to abscond with the Conservative mantle, redefining it to their liking.

And then you wonder why Conservatives don't flock to your banner. 


Had you any grasp of history, you would know that never works.

[roamer_1]

@Right_in_Virginia

I agree. Somehow,conservatism morphed into fascism because it's main focus seemed to be on cutting taxes.

Imagine that @sneakypete ... Using terms like hater and fascist, just like a liberal.

Do you even know what the word fascist means? Because it has nothing to do with cutting taxes.

Yes,that IS a major part of a traditional conservative stance,but it is not the main focus. Or at least it shouldn't be.

In MY alleged mind,the main focus should be on individual freedoms versus the power of government.

And yes,cutting taxes is and SHOULD be a part of that,but not the major focus by any stretch of the imagination. If the government would focus more on spending public money on infastructure and other neccesssary issues instead of supporting the welfare state,there would soon be less need for higher taxes.

NO. Conservatism says the federal government HAS NO BUSINESS doing ANY of that. All of it is outside it's aegis. Conservatives care about cutting taxes because it quits feeding the beast. It ain't the taxes, it's the money.

Support industries that hire employees,and soon there would be plenty of public money taken in and less need for issues like welfare.

Howabout leave industry the hell alone. What you are doing - government deciding who gets support and who doesn't in industry - What you are doing is a helluvalot closer to fascism than anything to do with cutting taxes.

You don't seem to mind big government so long as it is your big government... There's your problem right there.

GUT THE BEAST. Small government is the only answer that supports individual liberty against the power of government. The only answer at all.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Horseshit. I will do no such thing with such a calumny. Because all I need do is stand, and invite any who will to go read the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act which will prove the veracity of my claim - Something you could have done all along.

Any who would will see the truth, and any who won't ain't worth any alliance.

And by the way, I have defended this same point against Bushites and Romulans who , among others, did the very same thing for the very same reason... Just another clown in a line of posers, seeking to abscond with the Conservative mantle, redefining it to their liking.

And then you wonder why Conservatives don't flock to your banner. 


Had you any grasp of history, you would know that never works.

You must have passed out from all your spinning before you could explain Reagan's apology.   Hope you're okay.     

[roamer_1]

You must have passed out from all your spinning before you could explain Reagan's apology.   Hope you're okay.     

I explained it perfectly... And the difference: The buck stopped with Reagan, even though what he intended produced an unintended consequence. He stood and took the hit.

Something that has never occurred with (or to) Tumpy.

[LMAO]

You don't seem to mind big government so long as it is your big government... There's your problem right there.

Trump style populism

[sneakypete]

Imagine that @sneakypete ... Using terms like hater and fascist, just like a liberal.

@roamer_1

To quote that wise kid "Bart Simpson",eat my shorts!"

How about I call them "sugar plum faries" Would that be better for you?

Do you even know what the word fascist means? Because it has nothing to do with cutting taxes.

Well,it does when it comes to what taxes the ruling class pays.

NO. Conservatism says the federal government HAS NO BUSINESS doing ANY of that. All of it is outside it's aegis. Conservatives care about cutting taxes because it quits feeding the beast. It ain't the taxes, it's the money.

Blah,blah,blah.

Howabout leave industry the hell alone. What you are doing - government deciding who gets support and who doesn't in industry - What you are doing is a helluvalot closer to fascism than anything to do with cutting taxes.

You  DO realize you are posting to someone  living on a disability income from my time in VN,right?

You don't seem to mind big government so long as it is your big government... There's your problem right there.

No,my problem is you "preaching the gospel" according  to YOU,and damning everyone that doesn't march in lock-step with you.

GUT THE BEAST. Small government is the only answer that supports individual liberty against the power of government. The only answer at all.

Now you just sound like a clueless fool. How many billions live in the US now? I just looked it up ,and it is at roughly 331 million people. This does not,of course,include illegal aliens or tourists.

And you actually expect a SMALL government to manage a country of 331 million + people?????

Now,if you want to talk about a SMALLER government that is itself better managed,I can easily go along with that because you  would have to be as blind as a bat to not be able to see the mismanagement taking place.

[roamer_1]

To quote that wise kid "Bart Simpson",eat my shorts!"

@sneakypete
Eat your own shorts. You do indeed use hater language and fascist language just like liberals do. It's all right upthread.

How about I call them "sugar plum faries" Would that be better for you?

Weird. But you can call your shorts whatever you like I guess. 

Well,it does when it comes to what taxes the ruling class pays.

No it don't. Fascism is the use of industry to do the government's dirty work. Government, by force or collusion gaining control of industry. Big tech doing the bidding of the Democrats is a form of fascism.

So tell me then... What Conservative thought is fascist, as you accused?

Blah,blah,blah.

Blah, de blabbity. blah, blah.

You  DO realize you are posting to someone  living on a disability income from my time in VN,right?

So what? I am disabled too. Well, not yet right now, but headed there again it seems.

No,my problem is you "preaching the gospel" according  to YOU,and damning everyone that doesn't march in lock-step with you.

I don't give a shit what you do. But words mean things. Conservatism has a definition. I will always rise to defend that definition. That is all I do.

Now you just sound like a clueless fool. How many billions live in the US now? I just looked it up ,and it is at roughly 331 million people. This does not,of course,include illegal aliens or tourists.

And you actually expect a SMALL government to manage a country of 331 million + people?????

Read the Constitution. That's how. There is no argument that the government is way too big. It costs more than we make. 5-7T a year right now. We are now some THIRTY TRILLION DOLLARS in debt. 70T if you count unfunded liabilities... Get out your pencil and figger that out. Protip: A business administration costs way less than 10% of gross receipts... by that metric, this government should be running around 600B.

Now,if you want to talk about a SMALLER government that is itself better managed,I can easily go along with that because you  would have to be as blind as a bat to not be able to see the mismanagement taking place.

It really doesn't matter ho you wiggle... the jurisdiction belongs to the states, not the federal government. And it all boils down to 35 kids to the classroom, everywhere (ALL taxes are local)... IOW, the states are where the lion's share of the spending belongs. According to the Constitution and good sense. Federalism.

And that is a grand bullwark against one-size-fits-all governance like we get now, and moves the power closer to the people, where it belongs. No sombich 3000 miles away should have ANY business telling me what to do. But them state boys, I know most of em, and I can go right where they live and poke my finger in their chest and tell em what. THAT is small government.

[Hoodat]

And that is a grand bullwark against one-size-fits-all governance like we get now, and moves the power closer to the people, where it belongs. No sombich 3000 miles away should have ANY business telling me what to do. But them state boys, I know most of em, and I can go right where they live and poke my finger in their chest and tell em what. THAT is small government.

I would love to see a law enacted where every House member had to locate their Congressional office somewhere within their disctrict, and each pair of Senators in their respective State capitals.  All of their staffers would have to take up residence in the districts or States of their legislative employers.

All Capitol votes are to be performed remotely from a designated location within each district that allows a public audience, similar to a town hall meeting place.  Heckling of legislators that vote against the wishes of their constituents is to be encouraged.

K Street would be completely vacated within days.

[roamer_1]

I would love to see a law enacted where every House member had to locate their Congressional office somewhere within their disctrict, and each pair of Senators in their respective State capitals.  All of their staffers would have to take up residence in the districts or States of their legislative employers.

All Capitol votes are to be performed remotely from a designated location within each district that allows a public audience, similar to a town hall meeting place.  Heckling of legislators that vote against the wishes of their constituents is to be encouraged.

K Street would be completely vacated within days.

Yeah. No more Lobby. Now fifty lobbies.
Or is it fifty two?