The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Axel on October 18, 2016, 07:25:57 pm
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cheap-moralizing-of-never-trump-1476745922
The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
Trump voters get that the elite contempt for their man is a proxy contempt for them.
By WILLIAM MCGURN
Three weeks out from Election Day, the Never Trump argument has been neatly summed up by Bill Maher. Not only is Donald Trump coarse and boorish, anyone who supports the man is as revolting as he is.
On his show last month, Mr. Maher put it this way to Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway: “You are enabling pure evil.” The HBO comedian went on to amuse himself by adding that “Hillary was right when she called a lot of his supporters deplorable.”
Mr. Maher might have added that it is also a well-worn Democratic trope. After all, wasn’t it Barack Obama who described small-town Americans as bitterly clinging to guns and religion and disliking anyone who is different? As for Hillary Clinton, in her deplorables crack she dismissed half of Mr. Trump’s followers as “racist, sexist, homophobic.” Less well noted (but more telling), she also declared them “irredeemable.”
This is an old argument for the left. But Republicans are now hearing it from the right as well. Which puts conservative Never Trumpers in a curious position vis-à-vis government of, by and for the people: Are the tens of millions of Americans who will pull the lever for Trump come November evil too, or just invincibly stupid?
Give the Never Trumpers their due: Most do not shy away from the implication that anyone who would vote for Mr. Trump is as low and base as he is. Their problem is that the argument doesn’t seem to be having much traction with Republican voters. A Rasmussen poll released Monday found that while Mrs. Clinton enjoys the support of 78% of Democrats, Mr. Trump is supported by 74% of Republicans. Other polls show that even after all his fumbles and embarrassments, the vast majority of Republicans do not want Mr. Trump to drop out.
One reason may be that the argument about morally corrupt GOP voters is not really an argument. More precisely, it’s an argument Republicans typically hear from the left. Instead of weighing the prosaic facts—i.e., the practical ramifications of having Mrs. Clinton sitting in the Oval Office versus Mr. Trump—how much easier it is to try to end all discussion by pronouncing the GOP nominee repellent.
Trump supporters get this. Probably few were surprised by the “Access Hollywood” tape that showed Mr. Trump in full Bill Clinton mode. They support him in spite of it.
They support him because they fear political correctness is making vital discussions about the country impossible—and conclude that any candidate who’s going to take this on is not going to be Miss Manners. They support him because they know what they will get if Mrs. Clinton wins, as now looks likely.
They support him because they get the contempt dripping from Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton whenever the subject is the things they cherish: faith, patriotism, the decency of ordinary citizens, and so on. Above all, they support him because they also get that the elite contempt for Donald Trump is a proxy contempt for them.
Still, each new day brings new accusations and analogies. Like college sophomores ransacking history for the most extreme metaphors, no pejorative is too fantastic. Trump is Hitler! Trump is Mussolini! Trump is Nietzsche! Even George Will just likened the GOP convention to a “mini-Nuremberg.”
Ironically, the cheapest moralizing has been reserved for those trying to make the best of a bad situation. Thus Trump running mate Mike Pence finds himself accused of moral turpitude for working to keep the Republican Party from coming apart and giving voters some hope for a conservative agenda if Mr. Trump were to win.
Ditto for House Speaker Paul Ryan, excoriated by the Trumpers for his efforts to preserve the GOP’s House majority and by Never Trumpers for refusing to un-endorse the Republican nominee. Mr. Ryan understands that losing the Congress would give President Hillary Clinton two years to push through the progressive wish list, not to mention putting a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, preserving ObamaCare and maintaining the travesty that is the nuclear deal with Iran. Having watched what the 2010 GOP House takeover did to the Obama agenda, she would no doubt take full advantage of the time she has to act.
In the end, the strongest argument for a Trump vote has always been this: The alternative is a president who lies, whose public life has been a series of scandals from cattle futures to the destruction of documents under subpoena, who would be a third term for disastrous Obama policies at home and abroad, and who has never taken a position that wasn’t done from naked political expediency—from supporting the Iraq war in 2002 or opposing it later to invoking Abraham Lincoln to justify saying one thing in public and another in private.
Meanwhile, the Never Trump movement’s contribution has been to give us a word for all those who have weighed this evidence and have found the argument against a Clinton presidency persuasive: evil.
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cheap-moralizing-of-never-trump-1476745922
And guess what? We're still not joining you 'people' in voting for Donnie. So bitch away impotently. We simply will not be moved.
-
Ha? I thought the WSJ itself was pretty much NeverTrump.
They're NeverAnyone who threatens to cut off their precious cheap labor supply.
-
Three weeks out from Election Day, the Never Trump argument has been neatly summed up by Bill Maher. Not only is Donald Trump coarse and boorish, anyone who supports the man is as revolting as he is.
William McGurn demonstrating that if you start with a logical fallacy (strawman), you can prove anything.
Unfortunately for him, the Never Trump position is based on Trump's fitness for office, and Trump's ridiculous behavior has settled that particular argument.
-
In the end, the strongest argument for a Trump vote has always been this: The alternative...
After all that BS about NeverTrump bashing, all Bill can muster for an argument for his candidate is "But Hillary!".
Some of the laziest thinking comes from the Trumpettes.
-
Which puts conservative Never Trumpers in a curious position vis-à-vis government of, by and for the people: Are the tens of millions of Americans who will pull the lever for Trump come November evil too, or just invincibly stupid?
I'm going with the latter. At least there is finally an admission that we are indeed the conservative ones.
-
They support him because they get the contempt dripping from Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton whenever the subject is the things they cherish: faith, patriotism, the decency of ordinary citizens, and so on. Above all, they support him because they also get that the elite contempt for Donald Trump is a proxy contempt for them.
I'm sure to get ridiculed for this by the usual suspects, but this really hit me.
I've done my share of mocking of Trump supporters, some here, mostly at TOS. And it ashames me to admit it, but I think some of that was some latent elitism. I'm well-educated, etc., and it is extremely seductive to slip into a tone of mocking condescension for those who aren't as educated, or aren't as good as many others in either written or verbal expression. It's so easy to dismiss someone else's concerns just because you can make them look foolish in an argument, and it can be a bit of an ego boost as well. "See how badly I defeated you in this discussion? See how much better I am than you?"
I had a bit of that assholery in me when I first got commissioned. It took spending a lot of time among enlisted Marines for me to pull my head out of my ass and realize I wasn't a better person, or a better man, simply because I was more educated or intelligent in an academic sense. Other people can be good, decent, very capable individuals ever though politics, etc., is not their forte, and even though they haven't honed their rhetorical and linguistic skills.
I think the nomination of Trump was a terrible mistake that will cost our country dearly. But I don't think it means that those who supported him are bad people, bad Americans, or somehow lesser for it. Many of them are "salt of the earth" types whom we might admire and respect if politics didn't enter into it. Rougher language, etc, may be more common, but it doesn't make them bad. They're pissed off at some things at which they had good caused to be pissed, and just misjudged the best avenue for channeling that anger.
Anyway, I'm not participating in any more of the election stuff, but I do want to apologise here to anyone if I acted the condescending bleep.
-
Are the tens of millions of Americans who will pull the lever for Trump come November evil too, or just invincibly stupid?
I'm going with the latter. At least there is finally an admission that we are indeed the conservative ones.
On the contrary, I fully understand why a lot of respectable and intelligent people are going to vote for Trump. As for McGurn... this particular offering suggests that he's not among them.
-
I'm sure to get ridiculed for this by the usual suspects, but this really hit me.
I've done my share of mocking of Trump supporters, some here, mostly at TOS. And it ashames me to admit it, but I think some of that was some latent elitism. I'm well-educated, etc., and it is extremely seductive to slip into a tone of mocking condescension for those who aren't as educated, or aren't as good as many others in either written or verbal expression. It's so easy to dismiss someone else's concerns just because you can make them look foolish in an argument, and it can be a bit of an ego boost as well. "See how badly I defeated you in this discussion? See how much better I am than you?"
I had a bit of that assholery in me when I first got commissioned. It took spending a lot of time among enlisted Marines for me to pull my head out of my ass and realize I wasn't a better person, or a better man, simply because I was more educated or intelligent in an academic sense. Other people can be good, decent, very capable individuals ever though politics, etc., is not their forte, and even though they haven't honed their rhetorical and linguistic skills.
I think the nomination of Trump was a terrible mistake that will cost our country dearly. But I don't think it means that those who supported him are bad people, bad Americans, or somehow lesser for it. Many of them are "salt of the earth" types whom we might admire and respect if politics didn't enter into it. Rougher language, etc, may be more common, but it doesn't make them bad. They're pissed off at some things at which they had good caused to be pissed, and just misjudged the best avenue for channeling that anger.
Anyway, I'm not participating in any more of the election stuff, but I do want to apologise here to anyone if I acted the condescending bleep.
confession much
Don't Leave us Major, I, and a few others I'm sure, enjoyed your White Trailer Park Trash intellect.
-
Never heard so much whining and moaning in my life. You backed a pathetic lowlife loser, we don't. The end. Get over it.
-
confession much
Yes, it was, actually. I don't think that this election campaign necessarily brought out the best in me personally, hence the apology. Didn't really think it important enough to post anywhere else here, but since this article kind of triggered the thought, I figured this thread was as good a spot as any.
I don't recall conversing with you previously, so I certainly wasn't suggesting that you or anyone else in particular did anything out of bounds.
-
I'm going with the latter. At least there is finally an admission that we are indeed the conservative ones.
On the contrary, I fully understand why a lot of respectable and intelligent people are going to vote for Trump. As for McGurn... this particular offering suggests that he's not among them.
Are you saying they're evil then?
-
I don't recall conversing with you previously, so I certainly wasn't suggesting that you or anyone else in particular did anything out of bounds.
We haven't parlayed, Major and I didn't take any of your comment as an Insult.
We only got 3 weeks left, hang in there, perseverance.
You know it can't get no worst.
As 'the Donald' told the Blacks, recently, 'What have you got to Lose?'
-
Are you saying they're evil then?
I'm saying they're neither stupid nor evil. I understand their reasons, even if I disagree with them.
As for McGurn, this is one of the most dishonest screeds I've read in some time. It starts with a lie, and goes downhill from there.
-
The real sermonizing and holier than thou attitudes come from Trumpers
-
In the end, the strongest argument for a Trump vote has always been this: The alternative is a president who lies, whose public life has been a series of scandals from cattle futures to the destruction of documents under subpoena, who would be a third term for disastrous Obama policies at home and abroad, and who has never taken a position that wasn’t done from naked political expediency—from supporting the Iraq war in 2002 or opposing it later to invoking Abraham Lincoln to justify saying one thing in public and another in private.
And yet Trump is guilty of all of those things. Does he lie? Often. Has his life been a series of scandals? Absolutely-- he's been the subject of tabloid gossip and made-for-TV movies for decades. Would he continue Obama's policies? "The government's going to pay for it!" Does he take positions for naked political expediency? Of course he does; he has his base, and he is exploiting it; his position on Iraq is the same as Hillary's. Plus, I'm pretty sure Hillary never molested Chelsea, something I can't say about Donald and Ivanka. So the notion that people can use the specter of a Hillary Clinton presidency when the specter of a Donald Trump presidency is just as bad, if not worse, is not a good argument at all.
If you want people to stop Hillary Clinton, you'd better pick someone better than Hillary Clinton, which shouldn't have been that hard. In fact, technically, there's still time, since there are others on the ballot that fit the bill. Evan McMullin's eligible as a write-in in most states. Even Gary Johnson, for all his faults, would be an improvement, and he's on the ballot in all 50.
-
Evan McMullin's eligible as a write-in in most states. Even Gary Johnson, for all his faults, would be an improvement, and he's on the ballot in all 50.
@jmyrlefuller
And to think this has become our only hope, depending on this 'shiny squirrel' electorate to Discard both the top choices and throw this election into the house, odds are somewhere between slim and nil.
What a great chance we passed up with not nominating a Conservative.
-
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m13/geronl/trumpaganda1_zpsjxwsudus.jpg)
-
A distinction must be made between those who supported some other GOP candidate and are backing Trump because he's not Hillary and those who supported Trump from the beginning.
The former are taking a bad situation and trying to make something good out of it.
The latter may be good people but have very flawed judgment. No one who has subscribed to the conservative philosophy can, in good conscience, back Trump. Nor can anyone who refuses to recognize that an abhorrent human being like Trump simply cannot occupy the highest office in the land.
Those who have been ardent Trump cheerleaders all along will wear that around their necks like a stinky sock. Forever.
-
A distinction must be made between those who supported some other GOP candidate and are backing Trump because he's not Hillary and those who supported Trump from the beginning.
Why? If you run someone over, does it matter if it was in an F350 or a Kenworth? The end result and the damage wrought is the same. There is one correct position. Not voting for Trump. Period.
You are looking to absolve a friend or relative. You are looking to split the baby. Actions have consequences. Ethics arent situational.
-
confession much
Don't Leave us Major, I, and a few others I'm sure, enjoyed your White Trailer Park Trash intellect.
Wow.
-
Never heard so much whining and moaning in my life. You backed a pathetic lowlife loser, we don't. The end. Get over it.
Who do you back? Who are you voting for?
-
Who do you back? Who are you voting for?
YOUR PAPERS!!!! GIVE ME YOUR PAPERZ!!!!!!!!
-
@jmyrlefuller
And to think this has become our only hope, depending on this 'shiny squirrel' electorate to Discard both the top choices and throw this election into the house, odds are somewhere between slim and nil.
What a great chance we passed up with not nominating a Conservative.
Yes ... and so ... choices are; vote for the slim and nil chance, don't vote at all or vote for Trump. Yes, the chance to nominate a conservative passed, and unless we maintain the majority in the Senate and the House; the chances of the GOP winning another election be it in the Senate or the House, will be slim to nil. If Hillary gets in, we won't have to worry about the 2018 election; it will be over before they've even started.
-
Trump cheerleaders or NeverTrumpers... liberals have long derided conservatives as stupid. I"m beginning to see their point, frankly.
-
And yet Trump is guilty of all of those things. Does he lie? Often. Has his life been a series of scandals? Absolutely-- he's been the subject of tabloid gossip and made-for-TV movies for decades. Would he continue Obama's policies? "The government's going to pay for it!" Does he take positions for naked political expediency? Of course he does; he has his base, and he is exploiting it; his position on Iraq is the same as Hillary's. Plus, I'm pretty sure Hillary never molested Chelsea, something I can't say about Donald and Ivanka. So the notion that people can use the specter of a Hillary Clinton presidency when the specter of a Donald Trump presidency is just as bad, if not worse, is not a good argument at all.
If you want people to stop Hillary Clinton, you'd better pick someone better than Hillary Clinton, which shouldn't have been that hard. In fact, technically, there's still time, since there are others on the ballot that fit the bill. Evan McMullin's eligible as a write-in in most states. Even Gary Johnson, for all his faults, would be an improvement, and he's on the ballot in all 50.
What you are saying is all true. I'm not so sure that Trump is responsible though for 4 dead Americans, arming Syrian rebels, the rise of ISIS, Fast' n' Furious, etc., etc.,
I agree Castle with the Constitution Party, Johnson with the Libertarian party and McMullin as an IND would probably be an improvement. Johnson's policies are very liberal as well and McMullin is too unknown. I have faith in Castle, that's about it. However, the chances are slim to none that he or either of the others will impact the election enough to hand the election over for a House decision.
-
Are the tens of millions of Americans who will pull the lever for Trump come November evil too, or just invincibly stupid?
Let's see...
The American voter at large elected then re-elected Obama.
Ok... I'll take door #2!
Invincibly stupid it is!
-
And guess what? We're still not joining you 'people' in voting for Donnie. So bitch away impotently. We simply will not be moved.
And you will make certain to keep telling us so.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Piety overload.
-
A distinction must be made between those who supported some other GOP candidate and are backing Trump because he's not Hillary and those who supported Trump from the beginning.
The former are taking a bad situation and trying to make something good out of it.
@sinkspur
Describes my Family, a few Trumpsters and the rest GOP, so we gotta do it - Hillary and all.
So Sad, will be happier times when this is over and we can all get drunk together again.
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/files/2015/11/If-a-kingdom-is-divided.jpg)
-
William McGurn demonstrating that if you start with a logical fallacy (strawman), you can prove anything.
Unfortunately for him, the Never Trump position is based on Trump's fitness for office, and Trump's ridiculous behavior has settled that particular argument.
If "fitness for office" were a concern, we would never have had a "Precedent" Obama, and we would not now have a candidate Hillary.
-
I'm going with the latter. At least there is finally an admission that we are indeed the conservative ones.
I am thinking Pharasees.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
-
And you will make certain to keep telling us so.
Piety overload.
And guess what? We're still not joining you 'people' in voting for Donnie. So bitch away impotently. We simply will not be moved.
-
And guess what? We're still not joining you 'people' in voting for Donnie. So bitch away impotently. We simply will not be moved.
But you will keep telling us. There is no scenario in which you will not thrust what you believe is "Piety" in our faces.
-
But you will keep telling us. There is no scenario in which you will not thrust what you believe is "Piety" in our faces.
Sure there is. In that scenario, you commit to the selfless act of putting me on ignore and I'll never be in your face again.
See? I'm always helpful.
PS, YOU are throwing the 'piety' thing around sport. Not me. You just don't like hearing the truth of the situation. Thats where the ignore thing helps.
-
Why? If you run someone over, does it matter if it was in an F350 or a Kenworth? The end result and the damage wrought is the same. There is one correct position. Not voting for Trump. Period.
You are looking to absolve a friend or relative. You are looking to split the baby. Actions have consequences. Ethics arent situational.
No. At this point, it doesn't matter, Norm. Trump is finished and I can understand those who will vote for Trump to oppose Hillary. I won't vote for either. My family are all Democrats so they're voting for Hillary.
-
No. At this point, it doesn't matter, Norm. Trump is finished and I can understand those who will vote for Trump to oppose Hillary. I won't vote for either. My family are all Democrats so they're voting for Hillary.
Of course it matters. They will do it again in two years, then again in two more.Thats how we got here isn't it? Yup. It is.
-
Sure there is. In that scenario, you commit to the selfless act of putting me on ignore and I'll never be in your face again.
See? I'm always helpful.
PS, YOU are throwing the 'piety' thing around sport. Not me. You just don't like hearing the truth of the situation. Thats where the ignore thing helps.
It did the Jews no good to ignore the Nazis. The danger posed was not that the Jews would listen to them, but that other people would, and thereby aid the Nazis in their destructive efforts.
Those who voted third party brought Hitler to power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933), and History appears to be repeating itself again.
-
It did the Jews no good to ignore the Nazis. The danger posed was not that the Jews would listen to them, but that other people would, and thereby aid the Nazis in their destructive efforts.
Those who voted third party brought Hitler to power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933), and History appears to be repeating itself again.
Hey Mods!
Need a rule clarification.
Is it, or is it not OK to inject Hitler and Nazi references into debates about Trump?
Can we get a ruling on that please?
-
Hey Mods!
Need a rule clarification.
Is it, or is it not OK to inject Hitler and Nazi references into debates about Trump?
Can we get a ruling on that please?
How very totalitarian of you.
Are there other periods of history or other comparisons you would like to censor?
Just so we know where the speech boundaries are.
-
How very totalitarian of you.
Are there other periods of history or other comparisons you would like to censor?
Just so we know where the speech boundaries are.
You ain't the brightest bulb in that lamp, are you?
-
It did the Jews no good to ignore the Nazis. The danger posed was not that the Jews would listen to them, but that other people would, and thereby aid the Nazis in their destructive efforts.
Those who voted third party brought Hitler to power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933), and History appears to be repeating itself again.
Good God there really is no limit to the stupidity of the Trump supporter. None at all.
-
How very totalitarian of you.
Are there other periods of history or other comparisons you would like to censor?
Just so we know where the speech boundaries are.
@mystery-ak
@DiogenesLamp
You know, or should know, that the owners have asked that members not make references to Hitler or Nazism because those references are so inflammatory by their very nature. It's not a matter of @Luis Gonzalez trying to censor history, it's about trying to keep some slight modicum of peace here.
-
It did the Jews no good to ignore the Nazis. The danger posed was not that the Jews would listen to them, but that other people would, and thereby aid the Nazis in their destructive efforts.
Those who voted third party brought Hitler to power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933), and History appears to be repeating itself again.
The same could be said for Trump: the danger is not that #NeverTrumps will not hear him, but that others - Trumpists and alt-rightists - will hear him and assist him in destroying the country. He's already poured quite enough fuel on the violent insurrection pyre.
-
Hey Mods!
Need a rule clarification.
Is it, or is it not OK to inject Hitler and Nazi references into debates about Trump?
Can we get a ruling on that please?
Don't call Trump supporters brownshirts. Or Hilter Youth. Don't use Hitler/Nazi/Fascist as a lazy argument.
Specific historical parallels, sure. They're fine.
-
Trump has not been involved in any wars, as the Clintons, Obamas and Bushes have.
The Democrats per black pro-life activists have been killing off the black community.
http://blackgenocide.org/
-
I'm sure to get ridiculed for this by the usual suspects, but this really hit me.
I've done my share of mocking of Trump supporters, some here, mostly at TOS. And it ashames me to admit it, but I think some of that was some latent elitism. I'm well-educated, etc., and it is extremely seductive to slip into a tone of mocking condescension for those who aren't as educated, or aren't as good as many others in either written or verbal expression. It's so easy to dismiss someone else's concerns just because you can make them look foolish in an argument, and it can be a bit of an ego boost as well. "See how badly I defeated you in this discussion? See how much better I am than you?"
I had a bit of that assholery in me when I first got commissioned. It took spending a lot of time among enlisted Marines for me to pull my head out of my ass and realize I wasn't a better person, or a better man, simply because I was more educated or intelligent in an academic sense. Other people can be good, decent, very capable individuals ever though politics, etc., is not their forte, and even though they haven't honed their rhetorical and linguistic skills.
I think the nomination of Trump was a terrible mistake that will cost our country dearly. But I don't think it means that those who supported him are bad people, bad Americans, or somehow lesser for it. Many of them are "salt of the earth" types whom we might admire and respect if politics didn't enter into it. Rougher language, etc, may be more common, but it doesn't make them bad. They're pissed off at some things at which they had good caused to be pissed, and just misjudged the best avenue for channeling that anger.
Anyway, I'm not participating in any more of the election stuff, but I do want to apologise here to anyone if I acted the condescending bleep.
Your honest introspection is respected and the apology is much appreciated ...even though I'm not aware of your bad behavior on your part, if it exists. Suffice to say....you are not the typical Trump zealot that many of us have observed.
As for anger issues, there's a lot of that on all sides of every issue this year. Let's hope that we and the nation can get past it and go on to heal and mend fences. Not looking hopeful at this point, however. I much suspect that when Trump loses, he will continue to attempt to poison the well....
and will succeed.
-
Don't call Trump supporters brownshirts. Or Hilter Youth. Don't use Hitler/Nazi/Fascist as a lazy argument.
Specific historical parallels, sure. They're fine.
Thank you.
-
If you want people to stop Hillary Clinton, you'd better pick someone better than Hillary Clinton, which shouldn't have been that hard. In fact, technically, there's still time, since there are others on the ballot that fit the bill. Evan McMullin's eligible as a write-in in most states. Even Gary Johnson, for all his faults, would be an improvement, and he's on the ballot in all 50.
@jmyrlefuller
McMullin is on the ballot in some states, including Virginia, where I live. I checked with the voter registrar to make sure, and he's indeed on our ballot as an independent. He'll get our votes.
https://www.evanmcmullin.com/vote (https://www.evanmcmullin.com/vote)
-
I'm sure to get ridiculed for this by the usual suspects, but this really hit me.
I've done my share of mocking of Trump supporters, some here, mostly at TOS. And it ashames me to admit it, but I think some of that was some latent elitism. I'm well-educated, etc., and it is extremely seductive to slip into a tone of mocking condescension for those who aren't as educated, or aren't as good as many others in either written or verbal expression. It's so easy to dismiss someone else's concerns just because you can make them look foolish in an argument, and it can be a bit of an ego boost as well. "See how badly I defeated you in this discussion? See how much better I am than you?"
I had a bit of that assholery in me when I first got commissioned. It took spending a lot of time among enlisted Marines for me to pull my head out of my ass and realize I wasn't a better person, or a better man, simply because I was more educated or intelligent in an academic sense. Other people can be good, decent, very capable individuals ever though politics, etc., is not their forte, and even though they haven't honed their rhetorical and linguistic skills.
I think the nomination of Trump was a terrible mistake that will cost our country dearly. But I don't think it means that those who supported him are bad people, bad Americans, or somehow lesser for it. Many of them are "salt of the earth" types whom we might admire and respect if politics didn't enter into it. Rougher language, etc, may be more common, but it doesn't make them bad. They're pissed off at some things at which they had good caused to be pissed, and just misjudged the best avenue for channeling that anger.
Anyway, I'm not participating in any more of the election stuff, but I do want to apologise here to anyone if I acted the condescending bleep.
The odd part in all this is that if the discussion was just on the issues, we'd all likely agree, and not just on what is a problem, but on a lot of the solutions, too. It wasn't Trump's originally claimed political stance at the start of the Primary season that was so terribly different from the next Conservative over, it was his behaviour once the ball got rolling that caused a breach of faith, of trust, and finally, the Party. Some followed the man, others stayed with principles. Burying principles to support a person some see as the one to repair what will take all of us working hard to fix this Republic is where we will disagree.
It isn't the problem, so much as the proposed solution.
Perhaps when this disaster is over those of us who want to restore the Republic can craft a plan to do so.
-
Don't call Trump supporters brownshirts. Or Hilter Youth. Don't use Hitler/Nazi/Fascist as a lazy argument.
Specific historical parallels, sure. They're fine.
So like "Trump supporters are like the Nazi brownshirts that killed Jews" = no bueno, but "Trump detractors are like the blind and clueless Jews who allowed themselves to be slaughtered like sheep by Nazi brownshirts" is A OK.
Got it.
-
I think the nomination of Trump was a terrible mistake that will cost our country dearly.
Right.
But I don't think it means that those who supported him are bad people, bad Americans, or somehow lesser for it. Many of them are "salt of the earth" types whom we might admire and respect if politics didn't enter into it. Rougher language, etc, may be more common, but it doesn't make them bad. They're pissed off at some things at which they had good caused to be pissed, and just misjudged the best avenue for channeling that anger.
Righter.
(As for "rougher language," a) the worst of it was nothing compared to the ejaculations of the candidates and some
of their professional supporters in language less structurally coarse; and, b) if you'll pardon the expression, everyone's
entitled to an occasional "f@ck.")
Anyway, I'm not participating in any more of the election stuff, but I do want to apologise here to anyone if I acted the condescending bleep.
No apology needed, my friend. You were never as condescending as you think you might have been. As for others,
there are a lot of good people who've allowed this disgrace of an election to lead them to the poisonous wells.
How we devolved from a contest between George Washington and John Adams to a contest between Donaldus Minimus
and Hilarious Rodent Clinton puts a very sad spin on Edward R. Murrow's observation that, as a nation, we've come
into our full inheritance at a tender age. We're about to pay a tax on that inheritance enough to make a loanshark's
interest terms the essence of reasonableness.
-
If "fitness for office" were a concern, we would never have had a "Precedent" Obama, and we would not now have a candidate Hillary.
Seriously, how many here do you think voted for him or will vote for her?
-
If "fitness for office" were a concern, we would never have had more than a few previous presidents, and we would not now have a candidate Hillary.
Repaired on the house. :beer:
-
And guess what? We're still not joining you 'people' in voting for Donnie. So bitch away impotently. We simply will not be moved.
Nope!
-
Seriously, how many here do you think voted for him or will vote for her?
I've changed my vote. I was voting Giant Asteroid but I've decided to vote for Amazon. Amazing company... super efficient. They send me a present at least once a week.
-
I've changed my vote. I was voting Giant Asteroid but I've decided to vote for Amazon. Amazing company... super efficient. They send me a present at least once a week.
C'mon, Emjay... your vote could have a real impact!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjotRSgx2k4
Enjoy Pink Floyd? Give it a click!
-
I've changed my vote. I was voting Giant Asteroid but I've decided to vote for Amazon. Amazing company... super efficient. They send me a present at least once a week.
I'm still voting for my pet rock!
-
I'm still voting for my pet rock!
I can't. I have domesticated so many over the years I couldn't vote for all of them if I was a dead Democrat in Philadelphia. And I don't want any of them to get jealous...
-
I've changed my vote. I was voting Giant Asteroid but I've decided to vote for Amazon. Amazing company... super efficient. They send me a present at least once a week.
I dunno @Emjay , people swear the asteroid will take care of the immigration problem once and for all.
-
C'mon, Emjay... your vote could have a real impact!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjotRSgx2k4
Enjoy Pink Floyd? Give it a click!
Sweet meteor of death!
-
@mystery-ak
@DiogenesLamp
You know, or should know, that the owners have asked that members not make references to Hitler or Nazism because those references are so inflammatory by their very nature. It's not a matter of @Luis Gonzalez trying to censor history, it's about trying to keep some slight modicum of peace here.
I don't recall seeing anything about that, but if that is the wishes of the owners I will try to remember it. I think it is unfortunate because the Nazis really do parallel the same social forces currently at play in the Democrat party and Democrat social groups.
I think there are important lessons to be learned from the conditions surrounding World War II. As a matter of fact, I think there are important lessons to be learned throughout human history.
The "Gates of Vienna" come to mind as topic which is once again related to current events.
-
I don't recall seeing anything about that, but if that is the wishes of the owners I will try to remember it. I think it is unfortunate because the Nazis really do parallel the same social forces currently at play in the Democrat party and Democrat social groups.
I think there are important lessons to be learned from the conditions surrounding World War II. As a matter of fact, I think there are important lessons to be learned throughout human history.
The "Gates of Vienna" come to mind as topic which is once again related to current events.
I don't disagree with you. The parallels between Trump and a certain mousy little dictator are downright scary. However, most references are not of the learned variety but of the name-calling inflammatory variety. Be judicious, that's all.
-
The same could be said for Trump: the danger is not that #NeverTrumps will not hear him, but that others - Trumpists and alt-rightists - will hear him and assist him in destroying the country. He's already poured quite enough fuel on the violent insurrection pyre.
Trump might be a closet socialist. I personally think he is an apolitical ego driven narcissist that probably cannot spell "socialist" but there is no doubt whatsoever that Hillary Clinton is a psychotic socialist who is given to fits of rage.
One candidate adheres to a political philosophy that has created a body pile of over 100 million dead. (http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/) The other appears to be just in it mostly for his own glory, but also to some degree for his own belief that he can actually do some good for the country.
I don't like my choices, but I recognize one is on a different plane of horrible than the other.
-
The odd part in all this is that if the discussion was just on the issues, we'd all likely agree, and not just on what is a problem, but on a lot of the solutions, too. It wasn't Trump's originally claimed political stance at the start of the Primary season that was so terribly different from the next Conservative over, it was his behaviour once the ball got rolling that caused a breach of faith, of trust, and finally, the Party.
With this I can agree. I never believed Trump was a "converted" conservative, I always believed that was a phony act to gain our support because he could never win the Democrat nomination while the Clinton machine had a death grip on the party.
I felt that most conservatives would support the tried and true fighter we had in Ted Cruz, and Cruz was winning so Trump started cheating. (While the media gleefully helped him do it.)
Trump won the primary by cheating (going way over the line, repeating scurrilous accusations that were just immoral and bound to create serious and damaging rifts) but he did win it. I was quite disgusted by the manner in which he secured the nomination, but the rest of the party did not heed my counsel.
They wanted a brawler and a winner and they simply did not care how dirty or underhanded he needed to be so long as he would do what it took to win. I actually sympathized with that perspective, because after all the namby pampy gentleman losers we've had losing what should have been easy races, I too wanted someone who would let lose and knock people on their @$$.
But I wanted that person to be Ted Cruz.
And now that choice is off the table, so I have to pick Donald or Hillary. I pick Not-Hillary.
Some followed the man, others stayed with principles. Burying principles to support a person some see as the one to repair what will take all of us working hard to fix this Republic is where we will disagree.
It isn't the problem, so much as the proposed solution.
Perhaps when this disaster is over those of us who want to restore the Republic can craft a plan to do so.
I doubt it. There really isn't much left of the old Republic to work with now. We have slowly (under the influence of Liberal controlled media services) evolved into a pseudo socialist democracy, and one from which more than half the population receives benefits from the Government.
If there *is* to be any hope of repairing it, we simply cannot have another blatantly socialist President. It is already probably beyond repair, and I think a Hillary Presidency will send us down the path of Rome, which incidentally died of the same maladies currently affecting us.
-
Seriously, how many here do you think voted for him or will vote for her?
It is not what we will do that matters, it is what that 10% of the worst informed voters who cannot make up their minds until the election is very nearly upon them will do, that matters.
We got 40%. The Dems got 40%. That tiny little cadre of fools in the middle always decide which way the nation will go.
They obviously don't think "qualifications" are a big deal because they twice elected Obama.
-
I can't. I have domesticated so many over the years I couldn't vote for all of them if I was a dead Democrat in Philadelphia. And I don't want any of them to get jealous...
Damn straight. They'd break your bones if they found out.
-
I dunno @Emjay , people swear the asteroid will take care of the immigration problem once and for all.
Well, yeah, there's that.
-
I'm sure to get ridiculed for this by the usual suspects, but this really hit me.
I've done my share of mocking of Trump supporters, some here, mostly at TOS. And it ashames me to admit it, but I think some of that was some latent elitism. I'm well-educated, etc., and it is extremely seductive to slip into a tone of mocking condescension for those who aren't as educated, or aren't as good as many others in either written or verbal expression. It's so easy to dismiss someone else's concerns just because you can make them look foolish in an argument, and it can be a bit of an ego boost as well. "See how badly I defeated you in this discussion? See how much better I am than you?"
I had a bit of that assholery in me when I first got commissioned. It took spending a lot of time among enlisted Marines for me to pull my head out of my ass and realize I wasn't a better person, or a better man, simply because I was more educated or intelligent in an academic sense. Other people can be good, decent, very capable individuals ever though politics, etc., is not their forte, and even though they haven't honed their rhetorical and linguistic skills.
I think the nomination of Trump was a terrible mistake that will cost our country dearly. But I don't think it means that those who supported him are bad people, bad Americans, or somehow lesser for it. Many of them are "salt of the earth" types whom we might admire and respect if politics didn't enter into it. Rougher language, etc, may be more common, but it doesn't make them bad. They're pissed off at some things at which they had good caused to be pissed, and just misjudged the best avenue for channeling that anger.
Anyway, I'm not participating in any more of the election stuff, but I do want to apologise here to anyone if I acted the condescending bleep.
Nice post Major. This election has brought out the worst in all of us.
-
No apology needed, my friend. You were never as condescending as you think you might have been. As for others,
there are a lot of good people who've allowed this disgrace of an election to lead them to the poisonous wells.
Well, to be clear, I was not generally referring to my treatment of NeverTrump's here. The condescension angle really doesn't apply to them. It was with a few ardent Trump supporters here, and a lot more on TOS. I believed then and still believe now that they are wrong as hell in thinking that he was the best candidate. However, I do realize that my tone with a lot of those folks was that of a condescending, elitist pr*ck, which is generally a type I despise. So when you realize at some point that you were playing the part of something you can't stand...it's time for a course correction. It is entirely possible to disagree strongly with people without coming from a place of arrogance.
-
Well, to be clear, I was not generally referring to my treatment of NeverTrump's here. The condescension angle really doesn't apply to them. It was with a few ardent Trump supporters here, and a lot more on TOS. I believed then and still believe now that they are wrong as hell in thinking that he was the best candidate. However, I do realize that my tone with a lot of those folks was that of a condescending, elitist bleep, which is generally a type I despise. So when you realize at some point that you were playing the part of something you can't stand...it's time for a course correction. It is entirely possible to disagree strongly with people without coming from a place of arrogance.
Don't beat yourself up major, just write it off to frustration and force of habit.
After spending 8 years calling the people who twice helped to elect Obama to office "idiots" and worse, our side picks Trump to run.
Orange is the new black and all that.
-
I'm sure to get ridiculed for this by the usual suspects, but this really hit me.
I've done my share of mocking of Trump supporters, some here, mostly at TOS. And it ashames me to admit it, but I think some of that was some latent elitism. I'm well-educated, etc., and it is extremely seductive to slip into a tone of mocking condescension for those who aren't as educated, or aren't as good as many others in either written or verbal expression. It's so easy to dismiss someone else's concerns just because you can make them look foolish in an argument, and it can be a bit of an ego boost as well. "See how badly I defeated you in this discussion? See how much better I am than you?"
I had a bit of that assholery in me when I first got commissioned. It took spending a lot of time among enlisted Marines for me to pull my head out of my ass and realize I wasn't a better person, or a better man, simply because I was more educated or intelligent in an academic sense. Other people can be good, decent, very capable individuals ever though politics, etc., is not their forte, and even though they haven't honed their rhetorical and linguistic skills.
I think the nomination of Trump was a terrible mistake that will cost our country dearly. But I don't think it means that those who supported him are bad people, bad Americans, or somehow lesser for it. Many of them are "salt of the earth" types whom we might admire and respect if politics didn't enter into it. Rougher language, etc, may be more common, but it doesn't make them bad. They're pissed off at some things at which they had good caused to be pissed, and just misjudged the best avenue for channeling that anger.
Anyway, I'm not participating in any more of the election stuff, but I do want to apologise here to anyone if I acted the condescending bleep.
Just for the record, @Maj. Bill Martin - I have never been offended by anything you have said, nor have I found it condescending, though I have disagreed with some of what you've said.
I admire your efforts to be judicious and rational rather than emotionally responding to what amount to taunts.
At any rate, your pulling back, I think, can be understood by all of us.
This election is wearing us all very thin, and I pray we can recover from the damage done, and the ugliness revealed.
-
With this I can agree. I never believed Trump was a "converted" conservative, I always believed that was a phony act to gain our support because he could never win the Democrat nomination while the Clinton machine had a death grip on the party.
I felt that most conservatives would support the tried and true fighter we had in Ted Cruz, and Cruz was winning so Trump started cheating. (While the media gleefully helped him do it.)
Trump won the primary by cheating (going way over the line, repeating scurrilous accusations that were just immoral and bound to create serious and damaging rifts) but he did win it. I was quite disgusted by the manner in which he secured the nomination, but the rest of the party did not heed my counsel.
They wanted a brawler and a winner and they simply did not care how dirty or underhanded he needed to be so long as he would do what it took to win. I actually sympathized with that perspective, because after all the namby pampy gentleman losers we've had losing what should have been easy races, I too wanted someone who would let lose and knock people on their @$$.
But I wanted that person to be Ted Cruz.
And now that choice is off the table, so I have to pick Donald or Hillary. I pick Not-Hillary.
I doubt it. There really isn't much left of the old Republic to work with now. We have slowly (under the influence of Liberal controlled media services) evolved into a pseudo socialist democracy, and one from which more than half the population receives benefits from the Government.
If there *is* to be any hope of repairing it, we simply cannot have another blatantly socialist President. It is already probably beyond repair, and I think a Hillary Presidency will send us down the path of Rome, which incidentally died of the same maladies currently affecting us.
@DiogenesLamp
What you're saying is that we have to ultimately reward even the most morally bankrupt individuals, as long as they have Rs after their names. Trump is an admitted sexual assaulter; is there anything that could be a dealbreaker for you? Beating a woman? Rape? Murder? Or would you just say, he's my choice so I have to vote for him?
-
@DiogenesLamp
What you're saying is that we have to ultimately reward even the most morally bankrupt individuals, as long as they have Rs after their names. Trump is an admitted sexual assaulter; is there anything that could be a dealbreaker for you? Beating a woman? Rape? Murder? Or would you just say, he's my choice so I have to vote for him?
It's the same excuses we hear every election for electing a liberal while being called a conservative. Thats why conservatism is screwed until we rid the movement of people like this. Clearly situational ethics are just fine with them and not conservative principles. So realistically they should pitch their tent at the GOP and be done with it.
Of course, if they did that, they couldn't continue disrupting conservatives from the inside.
-
The idea that the GOP "base" is more holy or moral than the general US population is completely ridiculous and totally wrong. I would argue the opposite, they're less moral than the US population: they were willing to accept Trump's immorality, but the general US population isn't.
-
@DiogenesLampTrump is an admitted sexual assaulter
Where has he admitted that, @CatherineofAragon?
The 2005 tape doesn't show that at all...he explicitly states that they let him.
Could it still be assault? Yes. But he never says it is...he implies that they're perfectly willing because of his star status.
Or is there another example, about which I'm not aware?
-
Morals and integrity are not cheap. Often keeping your principles intact can come with a high price.
NEVER TRUMP NEVER EVER.
-
The odd part in all this is that if the discussion was just on the issues, we'd all likely agree, and not just on what is a problem, but on a lot of the solutions, too. It wasn't Trump's originally claimed political stance at the start of the Primary season that was so terribly different from the next Conservative over, it was his behaviour once the ball got rolling that caused a breach of faith, of trust, and finally, the Party. Some followed the man, others stayed with principles. Burying principles to support a person some see as the one to repair what will take all of us working hard to fix this Republic is where we will disagree.
It isn't the problem, so much as the proposed solution.
Perhaps when this disaster is over those of us who want to restore the Republic can craft a plan to do so.
Agreed. Trump's original stance on the issues in the beginning of the primary isn't the problem and his flip-flopping on those issues isn't as much of a problem as his immature, immoral, embarrassing, bombastic behavior and comments are. He relentlessly attacked his truly conservative fellow opponent and in doing so, further fractured the party; otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It is rather disingenuous of a supposed 'conservative' candidate, or at least a candidate running under the Republican umbrella to attack his fellow GOP candidates as outlandishly as he did and not go after his opponent until a month or so before the general election. In doing so, he has literally destroyed the party from within and the GOP electorate remains strongly divided. What the consequences of his actions will be to those running down ballot remains to be seen. It is very difficult at least for me, to not see this as all by design by the Clinton machine and Trump has merely been a siphon for the DEMS from the beginning.
As for restoring the Republic; I firmly believe with a Hillary presidency, there will be no chance of restoration until this country completely collapses and we may at best have a very slim chance to pick up the pieces and start over after the dust settles. With a Trump presidency, I am not at all confident that the outcome will be any different; especially if we don't hold our majority in both Houses.
-
It is not what we will do that matters, it is what that 10% of the worst informed voters who cannot make up their minds until the election is very nearly upon them will do, that matters.
We got 40%. The Dems got 40%. That tiny little cadre of fools in the middle always decide which way the nation will go.
They obviously don't think "qualifications" are a big deal because they twice elected Obama.
I may resemble that remark? Well, other than the "twice elected Obama" part, of course.
I have never before been an undecided voter in my life, and can't be called an uninformed voter by any stretch of the imagination. But this year is different. This year, as of this moment in time, I am still undecided. Personally, I believe that's more of an indictment against a broken process than it is against me ... but I admit that opinion could be self-serving.
This year's undecideds -- at least those who are anything like me -- shouldn't be dismissed as a "tiny cadre of fools". We understand Hillary is a bad option, but we believe Trump is a bad option as well and that leaves us in a conundrum. Will I play the cock-eyed optimist and vote for Trump in the hopes that he helps progress conservative ideals? Will I vote for a third-party candidate that more closely aligns with my beliefs, even though I fully understand his chances of winning are non-existent? Will I abstain from the presidential race and just vote down ticket? I am undecided -- not because I don't understand the choices and consequences, but because there is no option that I can honestly say I am at peace with quite yet.
Many people have come to the conclusion that Trump has earned their vote simply by not being Hillary. I respect that.
Other people have come to the conclusion that they cannot in good conscience vote for Trump because they don't trust him to govern according to their values. I respect that, too.
That doesn't mean I am a fool. It means that I take this very seriously, and continue to weigh my options and soul-seek about what I can and cannot do come election day.
-
I may resemble that remark? Well, other than the "twice elected Obama" part, of course.
I have never before been an undecided voter in my life, and can't be called an uninformed voter by any stretch of the imagination. But this year is different. This year, as of this moment in time, I am still undecided. Personally, I believe that's more of an indictment against a broken process than it is against me ... but I admit that opinion could be self-serving.
This year's undecideds -- at least those who are anything like me -- shouldn't be dismissed as a "tiny cadre of fools". We understand Hillary is a bad option, but we believe Trump is a bad option as well and that leaves us in a conundrum. Will I play the cock-eyed optimist and vote for Trump in the hopes that he helps progress conservative ideals? Will I vote for a third-party candidate that more closely aligns with my beliefs, even though I fully understand his chances of winning are non-existent? Will I abstain from the presidential race and just vote down ticket? I am undecided -- not because I don't understand the choices and consequences, but because there is no option that I can honestly say I am at peace with quite yet.
Many people have come to the conclusion that Trump has earned their vote simply by not being Hillary. I respect that.
Other people have come to the conclusion that they cannot in good conscience vote for Trump because they don't trust him to govern according to their values. I respect that, too.
That doesn't mean I am a fool. It means that I take this very seriously, and continue to weigh my options and soul-seek about what I can and cannot do come election day.
Yeah, same here. Everytime I think I'm settled on one way or the other, something happens to change my mind.
I probably won't know who I'll vote for until I'm in that booth on that Tuesday.
-
I have never before been an undecided voter in my life, and can't be called an uninformed voter by any stretch of the imagination. But this year is different. This year, as of this moment in time, I am still undecided. Personally, I believe that's more of an indictment against a broken process than it is against me ... but I admit that opinion could be self-serving.
This year's undecideds -- at least those who are anything like me -- shouldn't be dismissed as a "tiny cadre of fools". We understand Hillary is a bad option, but we believe Trump is a bad option as well and that leaves us in a conundrum.
Precisely. I made up my mind a while ago, but that's exactly where I was before I'd had enough.
-
Yeah, same here. Everytime I think I'm settled on one way or the other, something happens to change my mind.
I probably won't know who I'll vote for until I'm in that booth on that Tuesday.
I think tonight's debate will be a deciding factor. With the poll numbers in Clinton's favor, I anticipate she will deliver more of the same as her last debate. The pressure is all on Trump tonight; he has to have a stellar debate. Not just good, but stellar. IF he lets goes full 'Trump' on Hillary with his bombastic comments and behavior; he's done and he will have sealed his coffin completely shut. It is imperative I think for him to display a calm composure and speak half-way intelligently. If he can force Hillary to stumble on her statements or retract what she's previously stated (unlikely as she's a pro at lying and deception) and publicly catch her in a lie, she will lose the debate and there will be a real possibility she may lose the election.
I'm really not sure Trump can do it, though he really surprised me in the last debate. He needs a great debate as well as calmly destroying Hillary.
-
I think tonight's debate will be a deciding factor. With the poll numbers in Clinton's favor, I anticipate she will deliver more of the same as her last debate. The pressure is all on Trump tonight; he has to have a stellar debate. Not just good, but stellar. IF he lets goes full 'Trump' on Hillary with his bombastic comments and behavior; he's done and he will have sealed his coffin completely shut. It is imperative I think for him to display a calm composure and speak half-way intelligently. If he can force Hillary to stumble on her statements or retract what she's previously stated (unlikely as she's a pro at lying and deception) and publicly catch her in a lie, she will lose the debate and there will be a real possibility she may lose the election.
I'm really not sure Trump can do it, though he really surprised me in the last debate. He needs a great debate as well as calmly destroying Hillary.
Unless Donald Trump can be a different person in the debate than he is in real life, it will have no effect.
Everyone knows he's an actor.... a phony, a pretender. The only ones he'll fool by pretending to be an adult tonight are the ones who already are under his spell.
Besides which, most people won't even watch because they hate both candidates.
-
It is imperative I think for him to display a calm composure and speak half-way intelligently. If he can force Hillary to stumble on her statements or retract what she's previously stated (unlikely as she's a pro at lying and deception) and publicly catch her in a lie, she will lose the debate and there will be a real possibility she may lose the election.
I'm really not sure Trump can do it, though he really surprised me in the last debate. He needs a great debate as well as calmly destroying Hillary.
Trump's only chance is to focus solely on policy and to discuss it intelligently and coherently. That's the only chance he has to demonstrate a basic fitness for the office to the undecideds.
More of the same will sink him.
Personally, I think it's too late for him to change enough minds to make a difference. I suspect the true "undecideds" are probably not that numerous at this point. At best, he might win some wavering Republicans back, who are not the "undecideds" he needs to convince.
-
It's the same excuses we hear every election for electing a liberal while being called a conservative. Thats why conservatism is screwed until we rid the movement of people like this. Clearly situational ethics are just fine with them and not conservative principles. So realistically they should pitch their tent at the GOP and be done with it.
Of course, if they did that, they couldn't continue disrupting conservatives from the inside.
You don't have the political influence to do so. :tongue2:
-
You don't have the political influence to do so. :tongue2:
You seem rather proud of destroying conservatism.
-
Where has he admitted that, @CatherineofAragon?
The 2005 tape doesn't show that at all...he explicitly states that they let him.
Could it still be assault? Yes. But he never says it is...he implies that they're perfectly willing because of his star status.
Or is there another example, about which I'm not aware?
@Suppressed
No, he did not say they were perfectly willing because of his star status. Let's take a look at what came out of his mouth and then apply common sense:
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the bleep. You can do anything."
Trump admitted that he had a habit of walking up to women and just kissing them, without asking. Then he said, "they let you do it", which tells me they were intimidated by his status and therefore let him get away with it.
Now, if he didn't ask permission to kiss the women, do you think he asked if he could grab their crotches? What groper does that? He doesn't. He just gropes.
Add to all of that the fact that Rudy Giuliani, the former prosecutor, admitted that it was sexual assault.
-
The idea that the GOP "base" is more holy or moral than the general US population is completely ridiculous and totally wrong. I would argue the opposite, they're less moral than the US population: they were willing to accept Trump's immorality, but the general US population isn't.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
This is a hard truth, but there it is. We've given up the right to preach about moral values. Next time we try, people will laugh in our faces.
-
The idea that the GOP "base" is more holy or moral than the general US population is completely ridiculous and totally wrong. I would argue the opposite, they're less moral than the US population: they were willing to accept Trump's immorality, but the general US population isn't.
Putting party over principle is killing the party and the principles
-
I think the debate should be the worst rated show in TV history
-
You seem rather proud of destroying conservatism.
That was, after all, the goal, was it not?
I suppose they're proud of the damage they have done.
-
That was, after all, the goal, was it not?
I suppose they're proud of the damage they have done.
Yup. I'm just amazed at how so few people see it for what it is.
-
@Suppressed
No, he did not say they were perfectly willing because of his star status. Let's take a look at what came out of his mouth and then apply common sense:
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the bleep. You can do anything."
Trump admitted that he had a habit of walking up to women and just kissing them, without asking. Then he said, "they let you do it", which tells me they were intimidated by his status and therefore let him get away with it.
Now, if he didn't ask permission to kiss the women, do you think he asked if he could grab their crotches? What groper does that? He doesn't. He just gropes.
Add to all of that the fact that Rudy Giuliani, the former prosecutor, admitted that it was sexual assault.
It seems to me, given the quote and the circumstances, that you would have to work very hard to say this is anything but assault.
I understand that in a court of law, it may take more to actually prove it, but the cold reality is that Donald Trump took advantage of and molested women just because he could.
Applying common sense is a rare thing these days......... or so it seems.
@CatherineofAragon
-
Perhaps when this disaster is over those of us who want to restore the Republic can craft a plan to do so.
@Smokin Joe
I do not know why you persist in the fantasy that the country can be fixed in a post Hillary era. It can't. "It is either Trump or a thousand years of darkness."
The border is on the ballet this election.
The Supreme Court is on the ballet this election.
The amnesty is on the ballet this election.
A war with Russia is on the ballet this election.
American Jobs are on the ballet this election.
Amnesty for tens of millions of illegals, millions of Islamic refugees, courts including the Supreme Court packed with Marxists, open borders, more job killing, sovereignty killing trade deals. No the USA can not survive that as a constitutional republic. Elect Hillary and you kill the country.
Elect Hillary and give the Marxist Democrats a super majority forever. No conservative republican will ever be elected nationally and damn few will be elected state wide. Elect Hillary and Texas will turn blue by 2024.
-
@Smokin Joe
I do not know why you persist in the fantasy that the country can be fixed in a post Hillary era. It can't. "It is either Trump or a thousand years of darkness."
The border is on the ballet this election.
The Supreme Court is on the ballet this election.
The amnesty is on the ballet this election.
A war with Russia is on the ballet this election.
American Jobs are on the ballet this election.
Amnesty for tens of millions of illegals, millions of Islamic refugees, courts including the Supreme Court packed with Marxists, open borders, more job killing, sovereignty killing trade deals. No the USA can not survive that as a constitutional republic. Elect Hillary and you kill the country.
Elect Hillary and give the Marxist Democrats a super majority forever. No conservative republican will ever be elected nationally and damn few will be elected state wide. Elect Hillary and Texas will turn blue by 2024.
If you are going to cut and paste propaganda, at least spell check it so you don't look so unintelligent. We all make mistakes, but that one has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
This is a hard truth, but there it is. We've given up the right to preach about moral values. Next time we try, people will laugh in our faces.
And rightfully so.
How can we talk about ANY value in ANY area after nominating Trump as our candidate?
We've lost the high ground in every sense of the word. We have become the lies the left told about us because of the support for Donald Trump.
Even though the rabid supporters are still a minority of the Republican party (with a healthy dose of Democrats thrown in), we are now tainted by what they have promoted.
That's why I can't call myself a Republican any more.
I am NOT what the GOPe and Trump are. And I never will be.
-
Yup. I'm just amazed at how so few people see it for what it is.
What they don't see is that Trump is now the face of the GOPe. He didn't destroy them. He enabled them. He enhanced their goals.
It is Conservatism that he has maimed, while embracing the liberal establishment.
And his trolls are proud of it.
-
I've changed my vote. I was voting Giant Asteroid but I've decided to vote for Amazon. Amazing company... super efficient. They send me a present at least once a week.
Yeah send Amazon more money, hey it's not my job that's getting replaced.
Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post: Import Foreign Workers to Replace Spoiled Americans
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/08/26/washington-post-jeff-bezos-scab-workers-replace-americans/
-
Again @jpsb
This is a ballet:
(http://balletandopera.com/photos_info/theatre/conserv_rim/swan8.jpg)
This is a Ballot:
(http://grassrootsne.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/official-sample-ballot-lancaster-county-city-of-lincoln-general-election-may-7-2013-full-size.png)
-
Again @jpsb
Whats great is he refuses to change it because he thinks it upsets us. All he accomplishes is showing the low intelligence of his position.
Net gain: Nevertrump. Personally I hope he keeps posting it as is.
-
@Smokin Joe
I do not know why you persist in the fantasy that the country can be fixed in a post Hillary era. It can't. "It is either Trump or a thousand years of darkness."
The border is on the ballet this election.
The Supreme Court is on the ballet this election.
The amnesty is on the ballet this election.
A war with Russia is on the ballet this election.
American Jobs are on the ballet this election.
Amnesty for tens of millions of illegals, millions of Islamic refugees, courts including the Supreme Court packed with Marxists, open borders, more job killing, sovereignty killing trade deals. No the USA can not survive that as a constitutional republic. Elect Hillary and you kill the country.
Elect Hillary and give the Marxist Democrats a super majority forever. No conservative republican will ever be elected nationally and damn few will be elected state wide. Elect Hillary and Texas will turn blue by 2024.
Agreed, except whether TX or any other state is Blue or Red will be irrelevant. The Constitution will be dismantled and we won't see another election. IMHO there is no guarantee that the results of a Trump presidency will be any different; I actually highly doubt it.
-
You seem rather proud of destroying conservatism.
IMHO anyone that pays attention to politics/government/corruption and is not doing all they to stop Hillary from being elected POTUS is not a conservative nor are they a patriot.
-
Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post: Import Foreign Workers to Replace Spoiled Americans
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/08/26/washington-post-jeff-bezos-scab-workers-replace-americans/
Trump does the same thing.
-
Again @jpsb
This is a ballet:
(http://balletandopera.com/photos_info/theatre/conserv_rim/swan8.jpg)
This is a Ballot:
(http://grassrootsne.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/official-sample-ballot-lancaster-county-city-of-lincoln-general-election-may-7-2013-full-size.png)
This time around I'd much rather see a ballet than cast my vote at the ballot box. I am not looking forward to election day, not in the least.
-
IMHO anyone that pays attention to politics/government/corruption and is not doing all they to stop Hillary from being elected POTUS is not a conservative nor are they a patriot.
Thats OK. Because your opinion has no value to anyone but you.
-
IMHO anyone that pays attention to politics/government/corruption and is not doing all they to stop Hillary from being elected POTUS is not a conservative nor are they a patriot.
Between Trump and Hillary conservatives don't have a candidate to vote for this election. I feel it is my patriotic duty to elect a person who will not continue this country on its current path of destruction. Neither one of them fit into that category. If one votes for a third party candidate there is a chance that it would deny Hillary the majority. Voting for Hillary we know the country is gone. Voting for Trump is a crap shoot. Voting for a 3rd party candidate is voting one's conscience and could put us on a path to restoration. In your world, do you still consider any vote other than a vote for Trump not conservative and unpatriotic? If so, why?
-
@Suppressed
Then he said, "they let you do it", which tells me they were intimidated by his status and therefore let him get away with it.
It tells you that, but it doesn't say that objectively.
Was the sailor who kissed the nurse on V-E Day a sexual assaulter?
He was moreso than someone who goes up to kiss someone and they let him.
The fact that he said "they let you do it" means that there was some point at which they could have not let him do it. Was he leaning in and seeing whether they'd let him or not?
We don't know whether he would have forced himself on them. Perhaps you say he would have; I say we don't know.
Did the women feel intimidated and unable to say no? Perhaps, but again, we don't know from his words.
My point is that the statement is ambiguous, at worst. Nothing from his words says that he is admitting sexual assault.
-
This time around I'd much rather see a ballet than cast my vote at the ballot box. I am not looking forward to election day, not in the least.
I look forward to Election Day. It's the returns I dread.
-
It tells you that, but it doesn't say that objectively.
Was the sailor who kissed the nurse on V-E Day a sexual assaulter?
He was moreso than someone who goes up to kiss someone and they let him.
The fact that he said "they let you do it" means that there was some point at which they could have not let him do it. Was he leaning in and seeing whether they'd let him or not?
We don't know whether he would have forced himself on them. Perhaps you say he would have; I say we don't know.
Did the women feel intimidated and unable to say no? Perhaps, but again, we don't know from his words.
My point is that the statement is ambiguous, at worst. Nothing from his words says that he is admitting sexual assault.
Rudy disagrees. As a fed prosecutor I think he'd be qualified to assess if it was.
I get your point about the VE kiss. I'm as anti SJW/feminist as it gets and believe people have taken things too far. The VE Kiss was not a planned "Move on her like a bitch". It was a one off spontaneous type thing with no malice of forethought. But Trump has established a pattern and his words have legal ramifications should anyone file charges.
-
Sounds exactly like a leftist argument.
Yes, it does but you forgot elitist. It sounds like an elitist leftist argument.
Expecting basic human decency in a candidate should be the bedrock of democracy.
And yet, we've ended up with two candidates who do not meet that standard. The dems had no choice. We did.
-
IMHO anyone that pays attention to politics/government/corruption and is not doing all they to stop Hillary from being elected POTUS is not a conservative nor are they a patriot.
Then those who voted for Trump in the primaries are traitors.
-
Yes ... and so ... choices are; vote for the slim and nil chance, don't vote at all or vote for Trump. Yes, the chance to nominate a conservative passed, and unless we maintain the majority in the Senate and the House; the chances of the GOP winning another election be it in the Senate or the House, will be slim to nil. If Hillary gets in, we won't have to worry about the 2018 election; it will be over before they've even started.
I must disagree. If Hillary is elected we will have 4 years of a bad president ... if she lasts four years. She is not the ideologue about muslims that Obama is so we've got that. A lot of no-trump votes are voting down ticket so we may not lose the house and Senate ... we usually win that. Hillary does not have the Black support that automatically went to Obama. She will not be elected again. She wouldn't have been elected this time if certain events hadn't conspired to somehow make the unthinkable happen.
But we cannot put Trump in as a Republican/conservative candidate. He is a horrible dirty joke and not fit to represent the party. If he is roundly defeated, as he will be, the party can regroup and try to redeem itself. We do have some good leaders and they will need to rise up and have courage. Ted Cruz is one. Mike Lee another.
-
Rudy disagrees. As a fed prosecutor I think he'd be qualified to assess if it was.
I get your point about the VE kiss. I'm as anti SJW/feminist as it gets and believe people have taken things too far. The VE Kiss was not a planned "Move on her like a bitch". It was a one off spontaneous type thing with no malice of forethought. But Trump has established a pattern and his words have legal ramifications should anyone file charges.
Good Lord! I cannot believe anyone brought up the VE kissing in the context of Trump's perversions. I was kissed on VE day. Everyone was so happy. The streets were filled with joy and celebration. The sailors were carrying bottles and no one cared. The kisses were just little smacks and fun. Nothing sexual about them at all.
-
I was kissed on VE day.
:dropjaw:
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?
-
Was the sailor who kissed the nurse on V-E Day a sexual assaulter?
He would have been if he had grabbed her crotch after he kissed her.
But he didn't, did he?
I find it rather insulting, @Suppressed that you're trying to equate the joy and innocence of a VE day kiss and an iconic photo (that wouldn't have been quite so iconic if it had been followed by sexual molestation), with the degrading, power-grabbing molestation of Donald Trump.
He bragged that he could do it because he was rich and could get away with it.
There is no defense for Donald Trump's degradation and debasement of women.
He is a predator, and excusing it is why so many vile men just like him get away with sexual assault.
-
I may resemble that remark? Well, other than the "twice elected Obama" part, of course.
I have never before been an undecided voter in my life, and can't be called an uninformed voter by any stretch of the imagination. But this year is different. This year, as of this moment in time, I am still undecided. Personally, I believe that's more of an indictment against a broken process than it is against me ... but I admit that opinion could be self-serving.
This year's undecideds -- at least those who are anything like me -- shouldn't be dismissed as a "tiny cadre of fools". We understand Hillary is a bad option, but we believe Trump is a bad option as well and that leaves us in a conundrum. Will I play the cock-eyed optimist and vote for Trump in the hopes that he helps progress conservative ideals? Will I vote for a third-party candidate that more closely aligns with my beliefs, even though I fully understand his chances of winning are non-existent? Will I abstain from the presidential race and just vote down ticket? I am undecided -- not because I don't understand the choices and consequences, but because there is no option that I can honestly say I am at peace with quite yet.
Many people have come to the conclusion that Trump has earned their vote simply by not being Hillary. I respect that.
Other people have come to the conclusion that they cannot in good conscience vote for Trump because they don't trust him to govern according to their values. I respect that, too.
That doesn't mean I am a fool. It means that I take this very seriously, and continue to weigh my options and soul-seek about what I can and cannot do come election day.
I feel the exact same way.
-
:dropjaw:
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?
oooops... never mind
-
oooops... never mind
I just couldn't stand to see the sweetness and joy of that day sullied by comparing it to the things Trump said and did.
I don't know who originally made the comparison but he should be ashamed.
-
And you will make certain to keep telling us so.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Piety overload.
Another example of a Trump supporter who cannot discern the difference between humility before God and politics.
To put 'We're not voting for Trump' because he violates our conscience and principles with 'Thank God I am not like the Gentiles" is beyond stupid to equate.
It is oft the tool of Liberals to equate faith and principles with a Pharisaical mindset that is considered to be the worser sin.
-
I really cannot believe the stupidity that has gripped this site.
Ignore Donald Trump for a moment. I know that's a hard thing for some of you sociopaths.
Hillary Clinton - day by day, revelation after revelation - has demonstrated that she is the most dangerous, corrupt and treacherous political figure in the history of our wonderful American Republic.
This "First Woman" -after this "First Black guy" is going to throw our beautiful American experiment ... salvaged by the lives of over 1.5 million soldiers in our Civil War and others ...
You folks don't like Trump? You think he's a boor, a buffoon, a huckster? Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt political figure in America's history. The Podesta emails and this stuff by Project Veritas should inform EVERY patriotic and informed person about what to do November 8.
Some of you have spent every moment of every single day the last six months ridiculing and demeaning Trump. I did too, back "then". Now, we are seeing the treacherous corruption of Hillary Clinton, Accomplice Meia and this Soros-led Leftist conspiracy.
Hey, jackasses: IT IS NOW TRUMP VS. HILLARY.
Make your mark Tell us who you are voting for or against.
I expect an onslaught of "oh so principled conservative" bullshit. You better be ready to make an argument why any Trump presidency is WORSE than the Hillary reign of Socialist Terror.
I'm fit to fight, punks. Let's GO!
This is a conservative website? Bullshat. This is like DU or DailyKos.
-
Another example of a Trump supporter who cannot discern the difference between humility before God and politics.
To put 'We're not voting for Trump' because he violates our conscience and principles with 'Thank God I am not like the Gentiles" is beyond stupid to equate.
It is oft the tool of Liberals to equate faith and principles with a Pharisaical mindset that is considered to be the worser sin.
It seems to be a pattern among the Trump faithful to compare those who don't worship their god with the Pharisees. One worshiper here compared Trump directly with Jesus, and those of us who find fault with him directly with the Pharisees.
They are on dangerous spiritual ground here in their defense of debauchery with the use of Scripture.
God is not mocked.
And no matter how much they adore Trump, they are crossing a line here.....
-
There is no good reason for a conservative to vote FOR Trump. Hillary's friend and donor, about as liberal and corrupt as she is.
There is no case for that.
-
I really cannot believe the stupidity that has gripped this site.
Ignore Donald Trump for a moment. I know that's a hard thing for some of you sociopaths.
Hillary Clinton - day by day, revelation after revelation - has demonstrated that she is the most dangerous, corrupt and treacherous political figure in the history of our wonderful American Republic.
This "First Woman" -after this "First Black guy" is going to throw our beautiful American experiment ... salvaged by the lives of over 1.5 million soldiers in our Civil War and others ...
You folks don't like Trump? You think he's a boor, a buffoon, a huckster? Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt political figure in America's history. The Podesta emails and this stuff by Project Veritas should inform EVERY patriotic and informed person about what to do November 8.
Some of you have spent every moment of every single day the last six months ridiculing and demeaning Trump. I did too, back "then". Now, we are seeing the treacherous corruption of Hillary Clinton, Accomplice Meia and this Soros-led Leftist conspiracy.
Hey, jackasses: IT IS NOW TRUMP VS. HILLARY.
Make your mark Tell us who you are voting for or against. Or .... SHOVE IT AND STFU.
I expect an onslaught of "oh so principled conservative" bullshit. You better be ready to make an argument why any Trump presidency is WORSE than the Hillary reign of Socialist Terror.
I'm fit to fight, punks. Let's GO!
This is a conservative website? Bullshat. This is like DU or DailyKos.
et tu Arne??
Your loyalty to Trump has turned one of the nicest people around into a name-calling, arrogant, forum bashing nasty?
Wow. What a disappointment. I thought you had standards......
-
et tu Arne??
Your loyalty to Trump has turned one of the nicest people around into a name-calling, arrogant, forum bashing nasty?
Wow. What a disappointment. I thought you had standards......
You support Hillary Clinton. Just admit it.
Then, we can talk about standards.
-
et tu Arne??
Your loyalty to Trump has turned one of the nicest people around into a name-calling, arrogant, forum bashing nasty?
Wow. What a disappointment. I thought you had standards......
pod people
Like the old saying goes: When you dance with the devil, you don't change the devil, he changes you.
Once you sell your soul for the Orange Cheeto Lord, you never get it back.
-
You support Hillary Clinton. Just admit it.
Then, we can talk about standards.
I HATE Hillary Clinton. That's why I won't vote for her clone, Donald Trump.
And you're not permitted to tell that vicious lie on this forum. You KNOW better.
Who took away the real Arne and replaced him with a Trump pod person?? :shrug:
-
He bragged that he could do it because he was rich and could get away with it.
No, he didn't.
Again, more is being read into his words than are there.
He said "star" not "rich".
Do you really deny that many women throw themselves at stars? Wow...that's not a very reality-based understanding of the world. I've been close to that world in my previous job... I never saw sexual assault, but I saw a lot of women acting exactly as Trump described, very willing participants to whatever a star wanted.
You are presumably a lady, from what I've seen on here...so it's not your world. But don't assume things in his words just because it's not something you'd participate in.
-
I really cannot believe the stupidity that has gripped this site.
Ignore Donald Trump for a moment. I know that's a hard thing for some of you sociopaths.
Hillary Clinton - day by day, revelation after revelation - has demonstrated that she is the most dangerous, corrupt and treacherous political figure in the history of our wonderful American Republic.
This "First Woman" -after this "First Black guy" is going to throw our beautiful American experiment ... salvaged by the lives of over 1.5 million soldiers in our Civil War and others ...
You folks don't like Trump? You think he's a boor, a buffoon, a huckster? Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt political figure in America's history. The Podesta emails and this stuff by Project Veritas should inform EVERY patriotic and informed person about what to do November 8.
Some of you have spent every moment of every single day the last six months ridiculing and demeaning Trump. I did too, back "then". Now, we are seeing the treacherous corruption of Hillary Clinton, Accomplice Meia and this Soros-led Leftist conspiracy.
Hey, jackasses: IT IS NOW TRUMP VS. HILLARY.
Make your mark Tell us who you are voting for or against.
I expect an onslaught of "oh so principled conservative" bullshit. You better be ready to make an argument why any Trump presidency is WORSE than the Hillary reign of Socialist Terror.
I'm fit to fight, punks. Let's GO!
This is a conservative website? Bullshat. This is like DU or DailyKos.
Whatever @ArneFufkin, take the red pill it has a more calming effect.
The Glass is always half-full. After 8 years of obummer, it will be a cold day in Hell before America elects another black man. After 4 years of hellary it will be the same amount of time before we elect another women, I hope.
-
I really cannot believe the stupidity that has gripped this site.
Ignore Donald Trump for a moment. I know that's a hard thing for some of you sociopaths.
Hillary Clinton - day by day, revelation after revelation - has demonstrated that she is the most dangerous, corrupt and treacherous political figure in the history of our wonderful American Republic.
This "First Woman" -after this "First Black guy" is going to throw our beautiful American experiment ... salvaged by the lives of over 1.5 million soldiers in our Civil War and others ...
You folks don't like Trump? You think he's a boor, a buffoon, a huckster? Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt political figure in America's history. The Podesta emails and this stuff by Project Veritas should inform EVERY patriotic and informed person about what to do November 8.
Some of you have spent every moment of every single day the last six months ridiculing and demeaning Trump. I did too, back "then". Now, we are seeing the treacherous corruption of Hillary Clinton, Accomplice Meia and this Soros-led Leftist conspiracy.
Hey, jackasses: IT IS NOW TRUMP VS. HILLARY.
Make your mark Tell us who you are voting for or against.
I expect an onslaught of "oh so principled conservative" bullshit. You better be ready to make an argument why any Trump presidency is WORSE than the Hillary reign of Socialist Terror.
I'm fit to fight, punks. Let's GO!
This is a conservative website? Bullshat. This is like DU or DailyKos.
You would be better fit for a straight jacket.
Don't let the door hit you etc.
-
pod people
Like the old saying goes: When you dance with the devil, you don't change the devil, he changes you.
Once you sell your soul for the Orange Cheeto Lord, you never get it back.
I swear I didn't read this "pod person" post before I posted my own.
Some of these people have seriously become the antithesis of what they once were.
How does Trump love DO that to formerly decent people??
-
If you are going to cut and paste propaganda, at least spell check it so you don't look so unintelligent. We all make mistakes, but that one has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
My favorite ballet issue; do we choose Don Quixote (https://marinaharss.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/alexandrovadamir-yusupovbolshoi-theatre.jpg) or La Bayadere? (http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f1/7e/df/f17edf043b481ac31aead071421cc3b0.jpg)
-
I swear I didn't read this "pod person" post before I posted my own.
Some of these people have seriously become the antithesis of what they once were.
How does Trump love DO that to formerly decent people??
They were never decent people. they hid what they really are.
-
You would be better fit for a straight jacket.
Don't let the door hit you etc.
Norm, I'd slap you and you wouldn't do jack.
-
No, he didn't.
Again, more is being read into his words than are there.
He said "star" not "rich".
Do you really deny that many women throw themselves at stars? Wow...that's not a very reality-based understanding of the world. I've been close to that world in my previous job... I never saw sexual assault, but I saw a lot of women acting exactly as Trump described, very willing participants to whatever a star wanted.
You are presumably a lady, from what I've seen on here...so it's not your world. But don't assume things in his words just because it's not something you'd participate in.
My "world" is not that of a sexual predator..... that's true. But I have a daughter who works with the victims of men like Donald Trump.
You're mincing words and trying to make what is go away.
Wealth and stardom are power. Power makes evil men think they can do whatever they want. Donald Trump expressed that view of himself clearly.
He IS a predator. Even if the women were groupies, he molested them.
-
My favorite ballet issue; do we choose Don Quixote or La Bayadere?
I usually just put on my tutu and dance in front of the...
Er....
Nevermind...
-
Norm, I'd slap you and you wouldn't do jack.
Whatever you gotta tell yourself to get through the day I guess.
-
Make your mark Tell us who you are voting for or against.
I'm VOTING against Hellary and Trump, but, I haven't decided whether I will Write-In Castle or McMullin, leaning towards Castle right now.
-
They were never decent people. they hid what they really are.
I disagree.
I think Arne was a good person. He would never have posted that ugly rot before. He's changed.
He knows full well that I'm a conservative who opposes Hillary, and he just lied outright to me.
He never would have done that before.
Something has taken over him.
-
No, he didn't.
Again, more is being read into his words than are there.
You did it. You said women throw themselves at him. He admitted he did it uninvited.
-
I disagree.
I think Arne was a good person. He would never have posted that ugly rot before. He's changed.
He knows full well that I'm a conservative who opposes Hillary, and he just lied outright to me.
He never would have done that before.
Something has taken over him.
People don't change drastically. the mask just comes off.
-
Norm, I'd slap you and you wouldn't do jack.
Sorry you're not having any luck with your ED treatment.
-
You support Hillary Clinton. Just admit it.
Then, we can talk about standards.
Speaking of standards....apparently you're unaware of this one, as well.
I believe this forum has a rule against what you just did....ie accuse someone of supporting Hillary just because they do NOT support Donald Trump.
-
Something has taken over him.
The Orange Stain.
-
I disagree.
I think Arne was a good person. He would never have posted that ugly rot before. He's changed.
He knows full well that I'm a conservative who opposes Hillary, and he just lied outright to me.
He never would have done that before.
Something has taken over him.
What a conundrum. Either these Trump supporters were always 'like that' and just had you fooled.... or the mere event of Trump running for president as a Republican has changed them.
Problem is...if it's the latter, that means that Trump is even more dangerous to the nation than we previously determined. If he or his influence can change supposedly good conservatives into 'that'....
what ELSE can he do that is damaging and negative? I shudder to think.
-
What a conundrum. Either these Trump supporters were always 'like that' and just had you fooled.... or the mere event of Trump running for president as a Republican has changed them.
Problem is...if it's the latter, that means that Trump is even more dangerous to the nation than we previously determined. If he or his influence can change supposedly good conservatives into 'that'....
what ELSE can he do that is damaging and negative? I shudder to think.
This is why I say, aside from their increasing threats and violent outbursts, that they are a danger to everyone around them and why it's imperative we rid them from our lives/families.
-
People don't change drastically. the mask just comes off.
Eh...... maybe you're right.
But the transformation has been breath taking.
From apparent decency to overt lying and battering.
Just because I can't support a corrupt, amoral leftist insider like Trump.
-
Norm, I'd slap you and you wouldn't do jack.
Take it outside you two!
-
I disagree.
I think Arne was a good person. He would never have posted that ugly rot before. He's changed.
He knows full well that I'm a conservative who opposes Hillary, and he just lied outright to me.
He never would have done that before.
Something has taken over him.
They actually are fantastic examples of how people do not make sound decisions when they are angry or fearful (or both). It completely explains why Trump even made it as far as he has.
-
What a conundrum. Either these Trump supporters were always 'like that' and just had you fooled.... or the mere event of Trump running for president as a Republican has changed them.
Problem is...if it's the latter, that means that Trump is even more dangerous to the nation than we previously determined. If he or his influence can change supposedly good conservatives into 'that'....
what ELSE can he do that is damaging and negative? I shudder to think.
Wow. You're right about that.
If Trump has changed all these people, he is exceedingly dangerous. Even more than we thought.
Dark days.... **nononono*
-
I disagree.
I think Arne was a good person. He would never have posted that ugly rot before. He's changed.
He knows full well that I'm a conservative who opposes Hillary, and he just lied outright to me.
He never would have done that before.
Something has taken over him.
I love ya but ... are you out of your mind?
Have you seen the recent scandals regarding the DNC/Media/Organized Crime program to take our votes and destroy our Republic???
What the F??
Donald Trump is a boorish, narcissistic BUFFOON. I've said that from the start.
How, in any fantasy of his going-forward treachery or danger, could he EVER be more dangerous as a candidate than we know HILLARY CLINTON IS????!!!
Grow rup, Gosh dammit.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? This site is no different than Daily Kos. F it/
-
They actually are fantastic examples of how people do not make sound decisions when they are angry or fearful (or both). It completely explains why Trump even made it as far as he has.
True enough. I have said it from the beginning.... NO good decision is ever made in anger.
I just didn't realize how much the angry support for Trump was going to suck the decency out of people.
-
Eh...... maybe you're right.
But the transformation has been breath taking.
From apparent decency to overt lying and battering.
Just because I can't support a corrupt, amoral leftist insider like Trump.
It's a hard thing to accept. I have had people I thought I knew turn as well. But the evidence is what it is. Trump isn't a guy with psychic powers or a mind control machine. People just want what he is. He makes it OK for them to be who they really are. So their inhibitions drop and the real 'them' emerges.
-
Nothing new has been revealed about her heinous or the dem party. She is a known entity.
When it comes to her opponent, we are in the dark as to whether or not he will ever be able to control himself. Whether he will ever have enough self discipline to actually learn about the function of our government under our constitution or whether he will spend all his time trashing and bashing everyone with whom he disagrees.
I did not vote for either candidate but as Glenn Beck said........if she is elected.........SO BE IT
-
pod people
Like the old saying goes: When you dance with the devil, you don't change the devil, he changes you.
Once you sell your soul for the Orange Cheeto Lord, you never get it back.
If you are incapable of understanding the difference between Donald Trump's message and Hillary Clinton's message you really need to revisit what you do around these message boards.
I don't like you and that admittedly comes over from TOS.
-
This is why I say, aside from their increasing threats and violent outbursts, that they are a danger to everyone around them and why it's imperative we rid them from our lives/families.
Good luck with ridding them from your life. They're going to be sitting out there festering and sulking from now on after Trump loses (as planned) to Hillary. As for eliminating their presence from our families, I already have that handled. :laugh:
-
If you are incapable of understanding the difference between Donald Trump's message and Hillary Clinton's message you really need to revisit what you do around these message boards.
I don't like you and that admittedly comes over from TOS.
Trump says whatever pops into his head. His message is a lie.
-
I don't know who originally made the comparison but he should be ashamed.
@CatherineofAragon @Emjay
CatherineofAragon wrote "Trump admitted that he had a habit of walking up to women and just kissing them, without asking" -- which is what happened in the famous kiss. I contend that there are instances when kissing without asking is okay, not assault.
When a woman is willing for it to occur, then it's not assault. Of course, the "nurse" (who was actually a dental assistant who died last month), didn't actually have a chance to "let him" do it. She related it thus: “...then I was grabbed. That man was very strong. I wasn’t kissing him. He was kissing me.”
Imagine if Trump had said those words! I can see them being taken totally overboard by people saying it was a non-consensual assault.
-
True enough. I have said it from the beginning.... NO good decision is ever made in anger.
I just didn't realize how much the angry support for Trump was going to suck the decency out of people.
It's amazing that we used to make fun of the Trump "cult".
This site right now? It's a "NeverTrump" cult.
Enjoy Hillary! You're working toward her power.
-
I HATE Hillary Clinton. That's why I won't vote for her clone, Donald Trump.
And you're not permitted to tell that vicious lie on this forum. You KNOW better.
Who took away the real Arne and replaced him with a Trump pod person?? :shrug:
Bull you are Supporting Hillary. Every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary.
-
Good luck with ridding them from your life. They're going to be sitting out there festering and sulking from now on after Trump loses (as planned) to Hillary. As for eliminating their presence from our families, I already have that handled. :laugh:
Actually it's not a problem. I got rid of the idiots in my life during the Romney era. My life improved dramatically. That includes nutcase family members. Haven't talked to them since.
-
Wealth and stardom are power. Power makes evil men think they can do whatever they want. Donald Trump expressed that view of himself clearly.
He IS a predator. Even if the women were groupies, he molested them.
I believe he's a predator.
But I don't believe he admitted it.
-
Bull you are Supporting Hillary. Every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary.
Liar.
-
I love ya but ... are you out of your mind?
Have you seen the recent scandals regarding the DNC/Media/Organized Crime program to take our votes and destroy our Republic???
What the F??
Donald Trump is a boorish, narcissistic BUFFOON. I've said that from the start.
How, in any fantasy of his going-forward treachery or danger, could he EVER be more dangerous as a candidate than we know HILLARY CLINTON IS????!!!
Grow rup, Gosh dammit.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? This site is no different than Daily Kos. F it/
I'm going to ignore your angry outburst and just address the last comment.
It is an outright lie, and you KNOW it.
Grow up.
-
I believe he's a predator.
But I don't believe he admitted it.
I do.
I read his words.
He said exactly what he was doing.
-
Actually it's not a problem. I got rid of the idiots in my life during the Romney era. My life improved dramatically. That includes nutcase family members. Haven't talked to them since.
Well.....I only have one liberal in my family. I have now effectively managed to not have to see him ever again. Whatever works.
-
It's amazing that we used to make fun of the Trump "cult".
This site right now? It's a "NeverTrump" cult.
Enjoy Hillary! You're working toward her power.
And you're telling outright lies........ repeatedly.
SHAME on you, Arne.
The old Arne was better than this filth you're spewing.
SHAME on you.
-
Well.....I only have one liberal in my family. I have now effectively managed to not have to see him ever again. Whatever works.
They made the choice to be idiots. So be it. I have no desire to deal with psychotics, blood relative or not. Sucks but it is what it is.
-
You did it. You said women throw themselves at him. He admitted he did it uninvited.
No, I never said that women threw themselves at him. I said that some women do throw themselves at stars. And he said that women let him do things because of his star power.
There's nothing there that says he admitted sexual assault. Could it have been sexual assault? Yes. Could it also have been very willing women? Yes. We can't tell from his words. We have to go by his other behavior and words.
Melania "lets him" do things that I can only guess might disgust her, yet I wouldn't say she's being assaulted if she lets him. Women are adults with free agency.
-
Bull you are Supporting Hillary. Every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary.
Simple-minded nonsense.
A vote against Trump is technically half a vote against Hillary and half a vote against Trump. Let’s say that you’re the deciding vote in the presidential election. That’s right – congratulations! Sixty million Americans have voted for Trump, and sixty million have voted for Hillary. You instead cast your vote for Deez Nuts. You did not win the election for Hillary, nor did you lose it for Trump. Your vote didn’t count, essentially. In order for your vote to be a vote for Hillary, you must actually vote for Hillary. This is called elementary logic, for those keeping score at home.
Second, the ideological. Failing to vote for Trump is not a vote for Hillary. It is not even a statement that Hillary would be a better president than Trump. I believe that Trump would likely be a better president than Hillary, because it’s hard to imagine a worse president (other than President Obama). I also believe that Trump would destroy the conservative movement. And I prioritize the survival of conservatism more than beating Hillary Clinton. My top priority isn’t this election, but something more: the future of conservatism in America.
Like the writer, I fear the destruction of the GOP at large and conservative movement in general that I fully believe will be the legacy of a Trump victory, more than what eight years of Hillary can do to them and to the country.
-
Bull you are Supporting Hillary. Every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary.
Math ain't yer strong suit.
-
They made the choice to be idiots. So be it. I have no desire to deal with psychotics, blood relative or not. Sucks but it is what it is.
It does suck. Because being around them (usually on holidays) means that you have to bite your tongue and avoid certain topics (like global warming and the POS Obama). I have never been one to avoid uncomfortable situations. I face them and deal with them. So not talking about something for the sake of 'peace' in the family is something I just don't feel is right. It's unnatural for me.
So now I don't have to worry about it. Problem solved.
-
Math ain't yer strong suit.
Nor is logic and reason. And many of them, I've noticed, also have a problem with honesty.
-
Nothing new has been revealed about her heinous or the dem party. She is a known entity.
When it comes to her opponent, we are in the dark as to whether or not he will ever be able to control himself. Whether he will ever have enough self discipline to actually learn about the function of our government under our constitution or whether he will spend all his time trashing and bashing everyone with whom he disagrees.
Trump is no mystery, he won't change
-
It does suck. Because being around them (usually on holidays) means that you have to bite your tongue and avoid certain topics (like global warming and the POS Obama). I have never been one to avoid uncomfortable situations. I face them and deal with them. So not talking about something for the sake of 'peace' in the family is something I just don't feel is right. It's unnatural for me.
So now I don't have to worry about it. Problem solved.
Exactly. But look on the bright side. in a couple weeks the shrill screeching will remind us both why we went this route ;)
Of course The Trumplestiltzkins DO seem intent on getting a head start on the shrill screaming...
-
No, I never said that women threw themselves at him. I said that some women do throw themselves at stars. And he said that women let him do things because of his star power.
There's nothing there that says he admitted sexual assault. Could it have been sexual assault? Yes. Could it also have been very willing women? Yes. We can't tell from his words. We have to go by his other behavior and words.
Melania "lets him" do things that I can only guess might disgust her, yet I wouldn't say she's being assaulted if she lets him. Women are adults with free agency.
Unless they are the victims of a predator.
-
Bull you are Supporting Hillary. Every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary.
Not that tired old broken-down canard again, let the logical fallacy rest in peace where it is buried.
-
Exactly. But look on the bright side. in a couple weeks the shrill screeching will remind us both why we went this route ;)
Of course The Trumplestiltzkins DO seem intent on getting a head start on the shrill screaming...
Oh the Trumpist screeching is just gearing up. Luckily, I'm immune to their siren call of idiocy.
I much suspect that....much like with Trump himself....they have a bit of a "control freak" thing going on. They're unhappy that they can't control others and how others vote. That is their tough luck. They're just going to have to live with and deal with it. Nobody controls me.
-
I swear I didn't read this "pod person" post before I posted my own.
Some of these people have seriously become the antithesis of what they once were.
How does Trump love DO that to formerly decent people??
In my experience: through the exploitation of anger, fear, rage and resentment. It can easily blind people to even the most obvious flaws of a leader who promises to relieve their perceived suffering, and especially, to punish those who are afflicting them.
-
Oh the Trumpist screeching is just gearing up. Luckily, I'm immune to their siren call of idiocy.
I much suspect that....much like with Trump himself....they have a bit of a "control freak" thing going on. They're unhappy that they can't control others and how others vote. That is their tough luck. They're just going to have to live with and deal with it. Nobody controls me.
Oh ABSOLUTELY they have that going on. 100%. But I gotta go back to it being another reason that they are actual liberals. What happens when you tell a liberal 'No"? they completely lose their sXit. What happens when you tell a Trumper "No"?
They completely lose their sXit too.
People say 'Dammit you call everyone a liberal'. Well, when these peoples back a liberal, attack others (including threats of violence as seen upthread for not voting for a liberal, outright lying about people, events et all like a liberal, I say the shoe fits. They act EXACTLY as a liberal acts, use the verbatim language of liberals...it's all there plain as day. We all just have to accept the evidence.
-
Actually it's not a problem. I got rid of the idiots in my life during the Romney era. My life improved dramatically. That includes nutcase family members. Haven't talked to them since.
Damn, this is my old world at TOS.
Congratulations Norm: You're a loudmouthed Eunuch. You're a punk.
Okay, I'm out of here. I don't like you people. Good luck with the Hillary Presidency.
-
Damn, this is my old world at TOS.
Congratulations Norm: You're a loudmouthed Eunuch. You're a punk.
Okay, I'm out of here. I don't like you people. Good luck with the Hillary Presidency.
You obviously mistook me for someone that GAFs what you think. Allow me to cure you of that misconception. I don't.
-
Trump said himself that she rejected him but he kept trying.
Yes. He is a self-proclaimed predator.
It's not really a debatable point, IMO....
-
In my experience: through the exploitation of anger, fear, rage and resentment. It can easily blind people to even the most obvious flaws of a leader who promises to relieve their perceived suffering, and especially, to punish those who are afflicting them.
Correct observation. It's easy to see the blindness of what I still believe is cult-like behavior.
It's nearly identical to the Obama cult of 2008.
I had a young female family member yell at me, "Don't say anything bad about Obama!!"
That childish, star-struck attitude is reflected in some of the comments here.
Except they're coming from middle aged men, and that's pretty creepy.
-
Trump said himself that she rejected him but he kept trying.
That was a different woman.
-
I'd peg @ArneFufkin somewhere between ANGER and BARGANING on this CHART.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8o12WV6SkXk/UaZK93YkynI/AAAAAAAAAPg/goODqS2k1Pg/s1600/grief-model.png)
-
I'd peg @ArneFufkin somewhere between ANGER and BARGANING on this CHART.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8o12WV6SkXk/UaZK93YkynI/AAAAAAAAAPg/goODqS2k1Pg/s1600/grief-model.png)
I've been stuck in the Depression stage since Donny won Indiana or wherever his final victory was.
-
I'd peg @ArneFufkin somewhere between ANGER and BARGANING on this CHART.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8o12WV6SkXk/UaZK93YkynI/AAAAAAAAAPg/goODqS2k1Pg/s1600/grief-model.png)
I'd say denial. At this stage they don't even understand the problem yet. they still think Trump is gonna build a wall, deport all Mexicans, deny entry to Muslims...pretty much all the think he reversed on or backed away from entirely.
Yea they are mad at us, sure, but Trump is the person I think that chart has to be applied to for them.
TLDR: They are so far into category error they don't know whether to poop or get off the pot.
-
There is no good reason for a conservative to vote FOR Trump. Hillary's friend and donor, about as liberal and corrupt as she is.
There is no case for that.
And calling us 'jackasses' is really going to help.
-
Damn, this is my old world at TOS.
Congratulations Norm: You're a loudmouthed Eunuch. You're a punk.
Okay, I'm out of here. I don't like you people. Good luck with the Hillary Presidency.
I wonder, @ArneFufkin .... if you thought you'd convince any rational person to vote for Trump with your irrational outrage here?
And if you did, HOW do you think that would happen??
Let's say I'm undecided here. What have you said to convince me to vote for Trump?
(Hint...... you haven't even come close to persuading anyone to your POV. Was that your purpose? To fail?)
-
They were never decent people. they hid what they really are.
That's interesting. Were they 'sort of decent' people as long as a test didn't come along? Of did they have a core of hate and bitterness so strong that Trump was able to use that and then use them.
-
Enough... ArneFufkin has always been a good and thoughtful member at TBR and I hate to see him leave...please reconsider Arne.
-
Enough... ArneFufkin has always been a good and thoughtful member at TBR and I hate to see him leave...please reconsider Arne.
Well, he called all non-Trump supporters jackasses and right before that some other uncomplimentary thing so I have to say he has fallen from the 'good and thoughtful' throne.
That being said, I haven't blocked him and I hate to see people leave in a huff.
-
Well, there goes another legendary poster. You know the only folks chased off this pitiful excuse for a right-leaning website are Trump voters.
Trump voters, the only republican voters standing against the sorrowful loss of American sovereignty that will surely be our future if we stupidly allow ourself to elect an authoritarian, progressive left regime, headed by the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency, Hillary Clinton.
But, y'all go ahead, vote Darryl Castle 2016.
Stupid is as stupid does.
****cute kitty
-
Well, he called all non-Trump supporters jackasses and right before that some other uncomplimentary thing so I have to say he has fallen from the 'good and thoughtful' throne.
That being said, I haven't blocked him and I hate to see people leave in a huff.
This election has turned friends into enemies....it is so sad.
-
That's interesting. Were they 'sort of decent' people as long as a test didn't come along? Of did they have a core of hate and bitterness so strong that Trump was able to use that and then use them.
My experience in life is that people arent complicated when you get to the crux of them. They have patterns and behaviors that make them who and what they are. People can hide that, or they can act their way around it. But it doesn't change that core being.
Look at any con man. They seem like nice guys but they arent. Everything they do is calculated to screw you out of whatever they are after.
Look at serial killers. Guys like Ted Bundy were called 'handsome, charming guys' but they were really animals.
Look at the kindly grandma. She's not suddenly going to whip out an Uzi and go hunting at the local kindergarten.
The first two are examples of people hiding their true self very effectively. the Granny is what she is and is not going to do a polar flip, ever. Likewise, people that suddenly DO do polar flips in behavior are either undergoing a medical/mental breakdown of the legitimate variety...
Or they were hiding who they were all along.
-
Well, there goes another legendary poster. You know the only folks chased off this pitiful excuse for a right-leaning website are Trump voters.
Trump voters, the only republican voters standing against the sorrowful loss of American sovereignty that will surely be our future if we stupidly allow ourself to elect an authoritarian, progressive left regime, headed by the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency, Hillary Clinton.
But, y'all go ahead, vote Darryl Castle 2016.
Stupid is as stupid does.
****cute kitty
Your litter box full again? Must be. your flinging your crap all over... again.
-
Well, there goes another legendary poster. You know the only folks chased off this pitiful excuse for a right-leaning website are Trump voters.
Trump voters, the only republican voters standing against the sorrowful loss of American sovereignty that will surely be our future if we stupidly allow ourself to elect an authoritarian, progressive left regime, headed by the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency, Hillary Clinton.
But, y'all go ahead, vote Darryl Castle 2016.
Stupid is as stupid does.
****cute kitty
Donald Trump is a progressive authoritarian leftist, as well. But unlike Hillary, he's also ignorant and insane.
-
Enough... ArneFufkin has always been a good and thoughtful member at TBR and I hate to see him leave...please reconsider Arne.
He came on this thread to attack both the posters here AND to attack this forum.
I have always thought the world of Arne........... until he did this.
I would never block him. All it would take is an apology for his smearing me, and for smearing this good forum.
If he's the Arne I thought he was, he'll do that.....
-
Damn, this is my old world at TOS.
Congratulations Norm: You're a loudmouthed Eunuch. You're a punk.
Okay, I'm out of here. I don't like you people. Good luck with the Hillary Presidency.
@ArneFufkin, I can't believe you would let another (granted very opinionated) poster drive you off!
-
Your litter box full again? Must be. your flinging your crap all over... again.
Enough already...
-
@Smokin Joe
I do not know why you persist in the fantasy that the country can be fixed in a post Hillary era. It can't. "It is either Trump or a thousand years of darkness."
The border is on the ballet this election.
The Supreme Court is on the ballet this election.
The amnesty is on the ballet this election.
A war with Russia is on the ballet this election.
American Jobs are on the ballet this election.
Amnesty for tens of millions of illegals, millions of Islamic refugees, courts including the Supreme Court packed with Marxists, open borders, more job killing, sovereignty killing trade deals. No the USA can not survive that as a constitutional republic. Elect Hillary and you kill the country.
Elect Hillary and give the Marxist Democrats a super majority forever. No conservative republican will ever be elected nationally and damn few will be elected state wide. Elect Hillary and Texas will turn blue by 2024.
Look, pal, I have highlighted the error of your ways multiple times.
You either did not read or did not understand my responses.
Yeah, all toe shoes and tutu. You got one thing right, it is a big show.
or
Going to the ballet again? Geeez, you are one cultured up fellow.
Frankly, I, and I am sure many here will take a moment and try to understand an odd response, So either you are copy/paste spamming us with this which is about as effective as urinating on an oil well fire, or you are just getting in your quota for the day.
All those things have been issues since the '50s.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
-
I really cannot believe the stupidity that has gripped this site.
Ignore Donald Trump for a moment. I know that's a hard thing for some of you sociopaths.
Hillary Clinton - day by day, revelation after revelation - has demonstrated that she is the most dangerous, corrupt and treacherous political figure in the history of our wonderful American Republic.
This "First Woman" -after this "First Black guy" is going to throw our beautiful American experiment ... salvaged by the lives of over 1.5 million soldiers in our Civil War and others ...
You folks don't like Trump? You think he's a boor, a buffoon, a huckster? Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt political figure in America's history. The Podesta emails and this stuff by Project Veritas should inform EVERY patriotic and informed person about what to do November 8.
Some of you have spent every moment of every single day the last six months ridiculing and demeaning Trump. I did too, back "then". Now, we are seeing the treacherous corruption of Hillary Clinton, Accomplice Meia and this Soros-led Leftist conspiracy.
Hey, jackasses: IT IS NOW TRUMP VS. HILLARY.
Make your mark Tell us who you are voting for or against.
I expect an onslaught of "oh so principled conservative" bullshit. You better be ready to make an argument why any Trump presidency is WORSE than the Hillary reign of Socialist Terror.
I'm fit to fight, punks. Let's GO!
This is a conservative website? Bullshat. This is like DU or DailyKos.
Trump has openly admitted wanting to be a dictator. How many times has he said that only he can fix the problems we face? How many times has he said "I will do" this or that? We're not even talking about a benevolent dictator, either, in the vein of Lee Quan Yew. We're talking about a mentally unstable, self-centered, power-hungry sociopath who will do literally anything for power, including assaulting women; he's a man so deranged that he will make sexual comments about children, even his own, without batting an eyelash. He has donated to the Clinton Foundation, they've attended each other's weddings, he's heaped lavish praise on her when he wasn't seeking the Presidency. If she is as nefarious as you fear, he will do her bidding. If not, he will do his own-- and we ought to have great fear if that happens because he will destroy this country without hesitation if it would lead to his own benefit.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump are fit for the office. Both must be stopped, by whatever lawful means necessary. I will vote for someone else on the ballot in the hopes that enough join me in putting a dent in the corrupt two-party system that got us to this point.
The fact that you have stated "ignore Donald Trump for a moment" is a fatal flaw in your logic, because we're not voting for blank slates. You could say the exact opposite--"ignore Hillary Clinton for a moment" and you could come to the exact same conclusions about Donald Trump.
-
Trump's only chance is to focus solely on policy and to discuss it intelligently and coherently. That's the only chance he has to demonstrate a basic fitness for the office to the undecideds.
More of the same will sink him.
Personally, I think it's too late for him to change enough minds to make a difference. I suspect the true "undecideds" are probably not that numerous at this point. At best, he might win some wavering Republicans back, who are not the "undecideds" he needs to convince.
I don't see that happening. He's been 'unleashed', you see. And his invitation to Obama's half-brother to attend the debate, coupled with the debate crew having to tell him that, should he bring Bill's rape girls as well, that they'd be removed... is a clear indicator that he's going to go full nuclear in the debate.
-
He came on this thread to attack both the posters here AND to attack this forum.
I have always thought the world of Arne........... until he did this.
I would never block him. All it would take is an apology for his smearing me, and for smearing this good forum.
If he's the Arne I thought he was, he'll do that.....
I don't remember knowing Arne before but he must have been a fairly good guy to have so much support.
He's a Trump supporter and they are now officially desperate and it seems to make them mean.
They couldn't con us into voting Trump and they couldn't threaten us into voting Trump so they are in a melt down.
-
He came on this thread to attack both the posters here AND to attack this forum.
I have always thought the world of Arne........... until he did this.
I would never block him. All it would take is an apology for his smearing me, and for smearing this good forum.
If he's the Arne I thought he was, he'll do that.....
I know what he wrote and I am in no way condoning it....I just think it is so sad that this election has caused all this...friends turning on each other.
-
Well, there goes another legendary poster. You know the only folks chased off this pitiful excuse for a right-leaning website are Trump voters.
Trump voters, the only republican voters standing against the sorrowful loss of American sovereignty that will surely be our future if we stupidly allow ourself to elect an authoritarian, progressive left regime, headed by the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency, Hillary Clinton.
If you want an authoritarian, progressive left regime, all you have to do is elect Donald Trump!
-
Yup. I'm just amazed at how so few people see it for what it is.
They flat out said it in the primaries. "Blow up the GOP" was the goal.
-
I do not remember the incident but I blocked him a long time ago. Regardless, I think anyone who wants to stay should stay. But if they dish it out, they had better be able to take it right back.
Viewing it another way, some of us (myself included) have to occasionally stomp off like we are never coming back. It is just part of the emotional roller coaster of this election. So maybe we should all make clear we are not intending to run him off and that he should come back whenever he wants to. So that makes it easier for him to just take a needed break.
He's an adult. He can choose as he likes.
-
I really cannot believe the stupidity that has gripped this site.
Ignore Donald Trump for a moment. I know that's a hard thing for some of you sociopaths.
Hillary Clinton - day by day, revelation after revelation - has demonstrated that she is the most dangerous, corrupt and treacherous political figure in the history of our wonderful American Republic.
This "First Woman" -after this "First Black guy" is going to throw our beautiful American experiment ... salvaged by the lives of over 1.5 million soldiers in our Civil War and others ...
You folks don't like Trump? You think he's a boor, a buffoon, a huckster? Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt political figure in America's history. The Podesta emails and this stuff by Project Veritas should inform EVERY patriotic and informed person about what to do November 8.
Some of you have spent every moment of every single day the last six months ridiculing and demeaning Trump. I did too, back "then". Now, we are seeing the treacherous corruption of Hillary Clinton, Accomplice Meia and this Soros-led Leftist conspiracy.
Hey, jackasses: IT IS NOW TRUMP VS. HILLARY.
Make your mark Tell us who you are voting for or against.
I expect an onslaught of "oh so principled conservative" bullshit. You better be ready to make an argument why any Trump presidency is WORSE than the Hillary reign of Socialist Terror.
I'm fit to fight, punks. Let's GO!
This is a conservative website? Bullshat. This is like DU or DailyKos.
You ignore Trump and his behaviors and policy statements. He is a demagogue who seeks to destroy the basic foundations upon which America was founded. He also shows a leaning toward supporting thuggish behavior and violence to achieve his goals. A proto-fascist in the making.
He is unarguably worse than Hillary in the same way Mussolini was worse than Nixon.
And his ardent supporters, with their calls for and actual violence against non-supporters, are acting much like brownshirts, attacking anyone they desire. The only reason this site hasn't succumb is that they are a *VERY* small minority with no capability to actually *FULFILL* their desires. Had they more support, you can best believe they'd have instigated a coup and removed everyone who would not bow.
And yes, that's a fair comparison. Look at the two's behavior and ask, "What's the difference?"
You'll have a hard time finding one!
-
They thought they would have us when they bullied Cruz into an endorsement, but no.
"NO" Is exactly why they are so upset. They refuse to accept 'no' for an answer. But they don't have a choice and they can't deal with it.
-
Obviously. I'm not talking about force. I'm talking about a tiny bit of grace even if it is undeserved. For mystery's sake if nothing else.
You can't nice this away. They flatly refuse to stop with the Hillary supporter crap among the other BS.
Look. I appreciate Myst and hate the level of shit she has to deal with. But this isn't on us. It's on the Trumpists. They won't stop. and catering to them is the wrong choice.
-
I really cannot believe the stupidity that has gripped this site.
Ignore Donald Trump for a moment. I know that's a hard thing for some of you sociopaths.
Hillary Clinton - day by day, revelation after revelation - has demonstrated that she is the most dangerous, corrupt and treacherous political figure in the history of our wonderful American Republic.
This "First Woman" -after this "First Black guy" is going to throw our beautiful American experiment ... salvaged by the lives of over 1.5 million soldiers in our Civil War and others ...
You folks don't like Trump? You think he's a boor, a buffoon, a huckster? Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt political figure in America's history. The Podesta emails and this stuff by Project Veritas should inform EVERY patriotic and informed person about what to do November 8.
Some of you have spent every moment of every single day the last six months ridiculing and demeaning Trump. I did too, back "then". Now, we are seeing the treacherous corruption of Hillary Clinton, Accomplice Meia and this Soros-led Leftist conspiracy.
Hey, jackasses: IT IS NOW TRUMP VS. HILLARY.
Make your mark Tell us who you are voting for or against.
I expect an onslaught of "oh so principled conservative" bullshit. You better be ready to make an argument why any Trump presidency is WORSE than the Hillary reign of Socialist Terror.
I'm fit to fight, punks. Let's GO!
Sorry, Arne, but Trump's worse, far worse, than Hillary. Hillary's a conventional, corrupt politician. She's no one's choice for President, but she won't get our soldiers killed, or worse, in a egomaniacal hissy fit like Trump may.
Trump's problem is his temperament. A megalomaniac boy-child with no impulse control has no business being Commander in Chief. It's not about the issues; I could live with Trump's message if it were delivered by a sane messenger. Clinton may be Don Corleone, but Trump's Kim Jong Il with a thousand nukes at his disposal.
I've always voted for the Republican over the Democrat, so believe me, my defection comes with a heavy heart and real fear for the future of our Republic. Trump has created the conditions by which the Dems may control all three branches of government. That's a horrifying prospect, but one we will have to endure to ensure the safety and security of our loved ones, and our fighting men. Trump simply can't be trusted to be Commander in Chief; that's the tragic reality as I see it.
-
I know what he wrote and I am in no way condoning it....I just think it is so sad that this election has caused all this...friends turning on each other.
This is what partisanship does to people. We've lost sight of our principles and our conscience and tethered ourselves to teams. This is why I am, and always have been, a registered independent: parties get corrupted, and eventually people in large numbers make incredibly horrible decisions, ones that seem to be getting worse and worse as the years pass.
This is a perfect example. If we would have looked back to 2014, and assessed Donald Trump on a yes-or-no vote, he would have been rejected with a resounding no, comparable to Hillary Clinton herself. Yet, because he hijacked a primary process that we knew from the past two cycles was horrendously broken, we now tether ourselves to him even though I think most of us clearly know that he would never do the right thing.
This is the first election where I really don't have a preference for which one wins. I wasn't thrilled with Bush but preferred him over Kerry. I despise Obama and what he did to this country and ultimately supported both of his opponents. But Trump and Clinton? Between the two of them alone, I could seriously look and come to the conclusion that Clinton is less of a risk than Trump. At least the Clintons were kept in check with a GOP congress: we got deficit reduction, welfare reform, and a temporary end to the era of Big Government, so if that's the consequence of not voting Trump, I guess it is what it is. Trump is unrestrainable, and I know I'm drifting off on a tangent here, but I'm glad that I don't bind myself to the false dichotomy.
-
You don't have the political influence to do so. :tongue2:
@Axel
@Norm Lenhart
Yet we're responsible for Trump losing? How's that work?
-
I didn't mean to imply it was on us. I agree with all the NeverTrumpers. You guys are my sanity this election cycle. You are probably right it will not work. I don't know. I was just trying to think of a way to calm his anger since it seemed to really disappoint mystery. I have personally had him on ignore for quite awhile so....I don't really know him very well.
I'm sure we all would rather deal with issues than flame wars. Yes, even evil old me. But the more pressure builds up, the bigger the blast when it ignites.
You cannot placate people only interested in getting their way. They just keep ramping up, as we clearly see daily until they get their spoiled child way or they get blowback. And most of us are done with catering to their same speil over and over.
-
I know what he wrote and I am in no way condoning it....I just think it is so sad that this election has caused all this...friends turning on each other.
Yes. It's sad.
But my opinion, right or wrong, is that intense loyalty to Trump has changed people for the worse.
If people have turned on me and are calling me a Hillary supporter then the problem is theirs.
And hopefully, they will fix it once Trump loses badly because he's such a horrific candidate.....
-
It seems to me, given the quote and the circumstances, that you would have to work very hard to say this is anything but assault.
I understand that in a court of law, it may take more to actually prove it, but the cold reality is that Donald Trump took advantage of and molested women just because he could.
Applying common sense is a rare thing these days......... or so it seems.
@CatherineofAragon
@musiclady
Trump's meaning was clear. Even his lapdog, Giuliani, admitted it.
I hate to be a broken record, but I really regret defending conservative men from attacks by liberal feminists. I wish I hadn't wasted my breath. When the chips are down, it's hey, little lady, there are more important things to worry about than a little crotch grabbing.
-
@Axel
@Norm Lenhart
Yet we're responsible for Trump losing? How's that work?
Magic!
-
Arne is correct but I think what people get will be similar to all of those who wanted Obamacare, got it and now, see it is terrible.
No way, is Trump worse than the Bush dynasty, and we owe him for really overthrowing such Gloabalists and Elitists.
-
I love ya but ... are you out of your mind?
Have you seen the recent scandals regarding the DNC/Media/Organized Crime program to take our votes and destroy our Republic???
What the F??
Donald Trump is a boorish, narcissistic BUFFOON. I've said that from the start.
How, in any fantasy of his going-forward treachery or danger, could he EVER be more dangerous as a candidate than we know HILLARY CLINTON IS????!!!
Grow rup, Gosh dammit.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? This site is no different than Daily Kos. F it/
Scandel versus revoking US citizenship from those born here?
In what way is *THAT* even *CLOSE*!!!
(revoking birthright citizenship, a key Trump policy)
-
Obviously. I'm not talking about force. I'm talking about a tiny bit of grace even if it is undeserved. For mystery's sake if nothing else.
I wholeheartedly agree............. grace is definitely called for here.
And I'm very glad you joined this conversation, @RAT Patrol ! :patriot:
-
This election has turned friends into enemies....it is so sad.
That's why it's called a civil war.
The GOP is in the middle part of the first half. What happens after the election is the latter half. And no matter who wins, there will be political casualities.
Talk radio, for one.
-
@musiclady
Trump's meaning was clear. Even his lapdog, Giuliani, admitted it.
I hate to be a broken record, but I really regret defending conservative men from attacks by liberal feminists. I wish I hadn't wasted my breath. When the chips are down, it's hey, little lady, there are more important things to worry about than a little crotch grabbing.
Only some of them, @CatherineofAragon .
There's been a lot of support from the real conservatives (and real men) here in defense of the dignity of women.
I'll have to admit though, that in the big picture with the support for or excusing of Donald's assault against women, there has been a frightening realization that the left's attack has not been totally without merit.
There definitely are pigs on our side of the aisle..... **nononono*
-
Only some of them, @CatherineofAragon .
There's been a lot of support from the real conservatives (and real men) here in defense of the dignity of women.
I'll have to admit though, that in the big picture with the support for or excusing of Donald's assault against women, there has been a frightening realization that the left's attack has not been totally without merit.
There definitely are pigs on our side of the aisle..... **nononono*
Trump comments and behavior was indefensible. Is voting for Trump tantamount to supporting Trump in your eyes?
I think that liberal dominated USSC will make life terrible for all Americans, including women.
-
People don't change drastically. the mask just comes off.
Maybe one of the Trump Militants bit him?
-
There definitely are pigs on our side of the aisle..... **nononono*
@CatherineofAragon
I don't think they are on our side of the aisle. That mindset, by definition is not one based in conservatism. They may otherwise have conservative beliefs but respect for women is a core of chivalry, conservatism and basic JudeoChristian morality. Anyone that would bench that over a political candidate simply is not conservative.
Now someone make me a damn sammich! ;)
-
Maybe one of the Trump Militants bit him?
Oh God it's contagious?????
-
@Suppressed
It tells you that, but it doesn't say that objectively.
Nor does it need to. You're responding to selective parts of my post, so I'll ask again---if he didn't ask before he kissed them, do you think he asked, "Can I grab your p-word?"
Do you really think that happened?
Again---do gropers ask permission to do their thing? Or do they just grope?
Was the sailor who kissed the nurse on V-E Day a sexual assaulter?
He was moreso than someone who goes up to kiss someone and they let him.
Seriously? Kissing is not the sexual assault---it's the grabbing of the crotch. The genitals, the private area, whatever. You didn't miss that part, did you?
The fact that he said "they let you do it" means that there was some point at which they could have not let him do it. Was he leaning in and seeing whether they'd let him or not?
It means they let him get away with it and he suffered no consequences. Now you're assuming he was leaning in and testing the waters; he neither said nor implied it.
We don't know whether he would have forced himself on them. Perhaps you say he would have; I say we don't know.
I don't say he would have. He said he did.
Did the women feel intimidated and unable to say no? Perhaps, but again, we don't know from his words.
"When you're a star, they let you do it...you can do anything." He said that.
My point is that the statement is ambiguous, at worst. Nothing from his words says that he is admitting sexual assault.
Rudy Giuliani, the former prosecutor, admitted it was assault, but you conveniently edited out that part of my post.
-
I will say this....I do not understand how people here think that lil ol TBR is gonna decide this election...read the polls...if you believe them..over 60% of Americans have said no to Trump....
-
Damn, this is my old world at TOS.
Congratulations Norm: You're a loudmouthed Eunuch. You're a punk.
Okay, I'm out of here. I don't like you people. Good luck with the Hillary Presidency.
Well don't forget to pick up your free complimentary crying towel on the way out, oh by the way what kind of person is it that stoops to insults in an argument, oh wait I know a Trump supporter.
-
Only some of them, @CatherineofAragon .
There's been a lot of support from the real conservatives (and real men) here in defense of the dignity of women.
I'll have to admit though, that in the big picture with the support for or excusing of Donald's assault against women, there has been a frightening realization that the left's attack has not been totally without merit.
There definitely are pigs on our side of the aisle..... **nononono*
@musiclady
You're exactly right. It is only some of them.
It's just one more instance of 2016 being an eye-opening reveal.
-
Trump comments and behavior was indefensible. Is voting for Trump tantamount to supporting Trump in your eyes?
I think that liberal dominated USSC will make life terrible for all Americans, including women.
No. I have said repeatedly that I understand those who feel they need to vote for Trump reluctantly, because Hillary is so bad, so I know that there are those who vote for him who do not "support" him.
That said, there are those "on our side" who really have said that what Donald did was no big deal..... the equivalent of "locker room" talk......... and that is patently false, and completely dismissive of Trump's very real degradation of women on a regular basis, and in this case, his molestation. (Carson's and Falwell's sin in supporting Trump is egregious).
I also believe that the SC hope is based on nothing but air. There is absolutely nothing in Trump's life, past or present, to give anyone any real hope that he will nominate anyone but a liberal to the SC.
-
I will say this....I do not understand how people here think that lil ol TBR is gonna decide this election...read the polls...if you believe them..over 60% of Americans have said no to Trump....
Revenge for Romney
An inability to have any ability to get their candidate into the winners circle.
Anger because the country and their 'own' side of the aisle generally speaking/the right (for the sake of argument) rejected their candidate.
Because they are realizing that they arent going to win and can't accept it.
Because mostly they don't want to be wrong and have to deal with the blowback for their actions.
There are many reasons really. It's the same in any forum. People cant control their own little corner of the bigger picture and it's infuriating.
-
@CatherineofAragon
I don't think they are on our side of the aisle. That mindset, by definition is not one based in conservatism. They may otherwise have conservative beliefs but respect for women is a core of chivalry, conservatism and basic JudeoChristian morality. Anyone that would bench that over a political candidate simply is not conservative.
Now someone make me a damn sammich! ;)
@Norm Lenhart, my impulse is to post the frying-pan emoticon, but after that post, I can't bring myself to do it.
I'll get your sandwich, dammit.
-
@musiclady
You're exactly right. It is only some of them.
It's just one more instance of 2016 being an eye-opening reveal.
Amen to that! The revelations have literally taken my breath away.
The lengths and depths that people have gone to support the evil of Donald Trump are frightening.
And as a Christian, I truly believe that some are putting themselves in spiritual peril by supporting the outright sin of Donald Trump.....especially those who claim to be spiritual leaders.
-
@Norm Lenhart, my impulse is to post the frying-pan emoticon, but after that post, I can't bring myself to do it.
I'll get your sandwich, dammit.
And my slippers? Theres a good girl...
(runs quickly to the nearest closet/locks self in ;)
-
@CatherineofAragon
I don't think they are on our side of the aisle. That mindset, by definition is not one based in conservatism. They may otherwise have conservative beliefs but respect for women is a core of chivalry, conservatism and basic JudeoChristian morality. Anyone that would bench that over a political candidate simply is not conservative.
You are absolutely right that there is nothing conservative about degrading and debasing women.
Yet another way that Donald Trump proves his liberalism........ and anyone supporting his misogyny.
-
Make your mark Tell us who you are voting for or against.
I am against. :seeya:
(In my state, your presidential options include "None of These Candidates." That's my vote for president this time
around. It's the only vote a reasonable man can make without wanting to puke. If the American people were so all wise as to see a national
house on fire and offer us little more than a choice of arsonists to fight the fire, all they've done is prove H.L. Mencken right about
democracy: the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard . . . )
-
Arne is correct but I think what people get will be similar to all of those who wanted Obamacare, got it and now, see it is terrible.
No way, is Trump worse than the Bush dynasty, and we owe him for really overthrowing such Gloabalists and Elitists.
LOL! Your hatred of the Bushes is approaching a psychosis. They are saying nothing, yet you can't resist trashing them because they won't bend the knee in front of Trump.
Trump is a mental case. That you and other Trumpkins think his behavior is within normal parameters reveals your cult-like worship.
It appears Trump is going to be crushed, which is the only way to kill this foolishness of a "rigged election" and to bury his ridiculous behavior and populist notions.
-
It's amazing that we used to make fun of the Trump "cult".
This site right now? It's a "NeverTrump" cult.
Enjoy Hillary! You're working toward her power.
Now, that's where you lost it.
It is a site where there happen to be a group of people running the gamut from:
:blank: browbeating desperate Trump supporters so terrified of Hillary they don't know whether to defecate or go blind, lashing out at anyone who does not share that pant-pissing fear,
to
:blank: people who have decided to vote for Trump in the hope he will be at least less effective at damaging the country than Hillary and may even, by accident or design, actually do a little good
to:
:blank: people who have decided they cannot support Hillary but for reasons of absent credibility and other deep character flaws, along with Trump's past positions can't support Trump either and remain undecided.
to:
:blank: People who find Trump so repugnant to their values and who have no reason to believe he'd fulfill any of his promises (a Hillary in GOP clothing) who will not sanction him with a vote because it would effectively end any voice for Conservatives in the GOP and any semblance of moral high ground for the party (in essence, to try to save the conservative movement)
to:
:blank: People who can't vote for her, but who realize that if he proposes identical programs with a GOP Congress they will be whisked through even faster than the GOP caved to Obama, and frankly, don't trust him not to (as he has already talked of for child care--a huge entitlement), so they won't vote for him either.
We all agree either of them will be a disaster, some think he will be marginally less so than she will, and will vote for him for that reason. Some of us believe he will so tarnish the brand, so to speak, that Conservatives will lose their place at the table completely.
Many of us will vote for third party candidates or write them in if they aren't on the ballot in our state, candidates with either a platform we find credible and can vote for, or to build another party, anticipating the demise of the GOP. The GOP has made it clear there is no place for conservatives in the party, repeatedly since Reagan (who was a fluke, frankly), by paying lip service to us during the campaign and throwing us under the bus as the ballots were counted. Now, this time, it has gone beyond that. By ensuring the party rules will have open primaries allowed next time, the GOP is open to the same crossover vote influence in the future which has helped make this mess we're in.
Me, after nearly 40 years of being a Republican, I'm done with it. I'm voting my conscience. If enough good people would, we'd stop the liberals in their tracks.
YMMV
-
I am against. :seeya:
(In my state, your presidential options include "None of These Candidates." That's my vote for president this time
around. It's the only vote a reasonable man can make without wanting to puke. If the American people were so all wise as to see a national
house on fire and offer us little more than a choice of arsonists to fight the fire, all they've done is prove H.L. Mencken right about
democracy: the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard . . . )
I like these guys:
(http://images.techtimes.com/data/images/full/137950/bill-opus-jpg.jpg)
-
LOL! Your hatred of the Bushes is approaching a psychosis. They are saying nothing, yet you can't resist trashing them because they won't bend the knee in front of Trump.
The problem is that he objects to the Bushes for the wrong reason . . .
(https://store.cato.org/sites/default/files/styles/store-detail-img-15x/public/9781933995281_FC.jpg?itok=73jLfa8C)
-
And my slippers? Theres a good girl...
(runs quickly to the nearest closet/locks self in ;)
@Norm Lenhart
Yeah, you better be hoping that lock is strong, too...
-
@Norm Lenhart
Yeah, you better be hoping that lock is strong, too...
YOUCANTBUZEME!!!!!!! I'm the chosen of Talos!
(Lydia? Help me!.....)
-
I like these guys:
(http://images.techtimes.com/data/images/full/137950/bill-opus-jpg.jpg)
The guy on the right has potential . . . :beer:
-
I will say this....I do not understand how people here think that lil ol TBR is gonna decide this election...read the polls...if you believe them..over 60% of Americans have said no to Trump....
Yep. The danger of a forum is the illusion that it somehow represents any significant group outside of it.
Trump is GOING to lose, unless Hillary totally falls apart in the debate. There is now no external event-including a terrorist attack here- that would propel Trump to the presidency. The cake is baked.
Trump seems intent on burning things down, but I agree with Mike Murphy who said earlier today that the GOP can easily be put back together.
Trump and his supporters are an aberration and they will blow away with the wind.
-
The guy on the right has potential . . . :beer:
"Give me X-15 Cruise Basselopes or give me death"
-Patrick Henry
-
But, y'all go ahead, vote Darryl Castle 2016.
Don't worry. I will. Now doesn't that just skid yer britches?
BTW, none of your petty insults will convince me to vote for someone I wouldn't vote for at gunpoint.
-
The problem is that he objects to the Bushes for the wrong reason . . .
(https://store.cato.org/sites/default/files/styles/store-detail-img-15x/public/9781933995281_FC.jpg?itok=73jLfa8C)
I have less animus for George W. than I do for his Father. I fault George HW Bush for horribly damaging the nation.
Breaking that promise elected Clinton. The day he did it I was screaming at the radio about what a fool he was. I knew they would use that broken promise to paint him as a "liar" in the next election.
By breaking that Promise, he gave us a Nuclear armed North Korea, Homosexuals in the military, Technology transfers to foreign governments, the Assault weapons ban, the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, and therefore the 911 terrorist attack, several Liberal supreme court and many federal court Liberal judges who make up law from the bench, and a seemingly endless stream of other disasters of varying levels of horrible.
George HW Bush was a horrible President, and he badly damaged the conservative movement.
George HW Bush was the worst mistake Reagan ever made.
-
Trump and his supporters are an aberration and they will blow away with the wind.
Unfortunately they won't. they will blend back in to the right wing population only to reemerge at crucial points once again sabotaging any move towards conservatism.
-
Now, that's where you lost it.
It is a site where there happen to be a group of people running the gamut from:
:blank: browbeating desperate Trump supporters so terrified of Hillary they don't know whether to defecate or go blind, lashing out at anyone who does not shear that pant pissing fear,
to
:blank: people who have decided to vote for Trump in the hope he will be at least less effective at damaging the country than Hillary and may even, by accident or design, actually do a little good
to:
:blank: people who have decided they cannot support Hillary but for reasons of absent credibility and other deep character flaws, along with Trump's past positions can't support Trump either and remain undecided.
to:
:blank: People who find Trump so repugnant to their values and who have no reason to believe he'd fulfill any of his promises (a Hillary in GOP clothing) who will not sanction him with a vote because it would effectively end any voice for Conservatives in the GOP and any semblance of moral high ground for the party (in essence, to try to save the conservative movement)
to:
:blank: People who can't vote for her, but who realize that if he proposes identical programs with a GOP Congress they will be whisked through even faster than the GOP caved to Obama, and frankly, don't trust him not to (as he has already talked of for child care--a huge entitlement), so they won't vote for him either.
We all agree either of them will be a disaster, some think he will be marginally less so than she will, and will vote for him for that reason. Some of us believe he will so tarnish the brand, so to speak, that Conservatives will lose their place at the table completely.
Many of us will vote for third party candidates or write them in if they aren't on the ballot in our state, candidates with either a platform we find credible and can vote for, or to build another party, anticipating the demise of the GOP. The GOP has made it clear there is no place for conservatives in the party, repeatedly since Reagan (who was a fluke, frankly), by paying lip service to us during the campaign and throwing us under the bus as the ballots were counted. Now, this time, it has gone beyond that. By ensuring the party rules will have open primaries allowed next time, the GOP is open to the same crossover vote influence in the future which has helped make this mess we're in.
Me, after nearly 40 years of being a Republican, I'm done with it. I'm voting my conscience. If enough good people would, we'd stop the liberals in their tracks.
YMMV
Good post Joe
-
Yep. The danger of a forum is the illusion that it somehow represents any significant group outside of it.
The main reason I post in this forum is expressly to ESCAPE the groups outside of it.
-
Well, there goes another legendary poster. You know the only folks chased off this pitiful excuse for a right-leaning website are Trump voters.
Trump voters, the only republican voters standing against the sorrowful loss of American sovereignty that will surely be our future if we stupidly allow ourself to elect an authoritarian, progressive left regime, headed by the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency, Hillary Clinton.
But, y'all go ahead, vote Darryl Castle 2016.
Stupid is as stupid does.
You *sElected* Hildabeast the moment you decided to support her Trojan Stalking Horse to be your prince.
So we will be voting for Castle or Johnson or whomever we write-in.
The *blame* for Hildabeast being coronated without the self-evident corruption necessary to create an appearance of legitimacy lies with you and your fellow Trumpatriots.
-
I know what he wrote and I am in no way condoning it....I just think it is so sad that this election has caused all this...friends turning on each other.
If this is as close as we get to the 'brother against brother' of 150+ years ago, we may be fortunate indeed.
-
They thought they would have us when they bullied Cruz into an endorsement, but no.
That is back to following principles versus the person. If we had suddenly found out some horrible and completely credible nastiness about Cruz, we would have been disappointed in the person, but our principles would have remained intact, the metric by which other candidates would have been measured.
Those who follow the person (often at the expense of principles) are not so anchored, and have difficulty understanding that.
I think much of the strife we are seeing is a direct result of those who have absolute morals versus those who are practicing situation ethics.
-
Well, there goes another legendary poster. You know the only folks chased off this pitiful excuse for a right-leaning website are Trump voters.
Trump voters, the only republican voters standing against the sorrowful loss of American sovereignty that will surely be our future if we stupidly allow ourself to elect an authoritarian, progressive left regime, headed by the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency, Hillary Clinton.
But, y'all go ahead, vote Darryl Castle 2016.
Stupid is as stupid does.
****cute kitty
You mistake a tiny contingent of #NeverTrumpers for a force that can actually deny Trump the White House.
Look at any poll. Several million are saying they will not vote for Trump. Nothing our little group here does will make any difference one way or another.
American sovereignty is safe because of Americans. We survived Obama, we'll survive Hillary.
We'll survive Hillary likely better than we'd survive Trump.
-
I'm sure we all would rather deal with issues than flame wars. Yes, even evil old me. But the more pressure builds up, the bigger the blast when it ignites.
You cannot placate people only interested in getting their way. They just keep ramping up, as we clearly see daily until they get their spoiled child way or they get blowback. And most of us are done with catering to their same speil over and over.
Both personal experience and history indicate that if you try, they will just want more of it. "Peace in our time" and all that.
-
@musiclady
You're exactly right. It is only some of them.
It's just one more instance of 2016 being an eye-opening reveal.
Abuse of power, however derived, is not limited to any particular political ideology.
Sexual assault, especially as described, isn't about sex, it is about asserting dominance: a power trip.
-
Unfortunately they won't. they will blend back in to the right wing population only to reemerge at crucial points once again sabotaging any move towards conservatism.
I really don't think so. George Wallace's crowd (remember, he won five states) virtually vanished after Nixon was elected. Trump is dead as a political force. Anger dissipates once the target event is over.
We can all unite in support of the Republican House and be in opposition to Hillary. But Trump was an interloper, an outsider who had no business running for president. And, as many of us said on June 15, 2015, there is no way this guy could ever win the presidency.
-
If this is as close as we get to the 'brother against brother' of 150+ years ago, we may be fortunate indeed.
I have thought of that analogy also and we are almost there.
-
The guy on the right has potential . . . :beer:
@ Honest John.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff278/eotwp1/Bloom%20County/opus2.jpg)Yep. He can keep his eye on the ball! He can focus on what is really important! :silly:
-
I have thought of that analogy also and we are almost there.
Unfortunately so.
-
I really don't think so. George Wallace's crowd (remember, he won five states) virtually vanished after Nixon was elected. Trump is dead as a political force. Anger dissipates once the target event is over.
We can all unite in support of the Republican House and be in opposition to Hillary. But Trump was an interloper, an outsider who had no business running for president. And, as many of us said on June 15, 2015, there is no way this guy could ever win the presidency.
George Wallace's crowd vanished after he got shot. Had Wallace not been crippled in that shooting, he may have been a bigger force in politics. The people I knew who were Wallace supporters mainly were after States' Rights.
-
I really don't think so. George Wallace's crowd (remember, he won five states) virtually vanished after Nixon was elected. Trump is dead as a political force. Anger dissipates once the target event is over.
We can all unite in support of the Republican House and be in opposition to Hillary. But Trump was an interloper, an outsider who had no business running for president. And, as many of us said on June 15, 2015, there is no way this guy could ever win the presidency.
Trump himself, yes I agree. But the true believers wanted him for their revenge. They will not get it with him so they will be doubly POd.
I hope you're right. I genuinely do. But after living through this election season and seeing what we have, I can't make myself accept those nut cases are going to disappear. Not after their physical threats, physical attacks, throwing out every conservative principle, every Christian principle...I just can't buy that.
-
If you voted Republican your entire life but just now decide you won't vote for the republican nominee...then, yes, you are enabling Hillary Clinton. It's not as if you were lifelong democrats. Those we expect, but republicans? deciding not to engage?
#NeverTrump is a republican invention, and it is an abomination.
-
George Wallace's crowd vanished after he got shot. Had Wallace not been crippled in that shooting, he may have been a bigger force in politics. The people I knew who were Wallace supporters mainly were after States' Rights.
It's sad that a legitimate issue like states' rights--a cause that Everett Dirksen, who encouraged the passage of the Civil Rights Act, championed, by the way, so it wasn't just a race issue--got overshadowed by that.
Dirksen was before my time but I've earned a hell of a lot of respect for the guy from what I read. His movement to repeal Reynolds v. Sims was the closest we got to an Article V convention of the states we've ever come. It's a shame he died before he could get enough states to go along with it (and not long after, the legislature engineering forced by Reynolds killed the movement). I firmly believe the implosion of states' rights was a major factor in our situation today.
-
#NeverTrump is a republican invention, and it is an abomination.
-
Damn, this is my old world at TOS.
Congratulations Norm: You're a loudmouthed Eunuch. You're a punk.
Okay, I'm out of here. I don't like you people. Good luck with the Hillary Presidency.
This is just a taste of what you NeverTrumpers have coming should Trump lose. The Rats will not like you and conservatives are going to downright hate you for helping to elect Hillary. Trump may be boorish but Hillary is pure evil. Trump will, from time to time, embarrass you, Hillary will bring hell to Earth every freakin day.
-
If you voted Republican your entire life but just now decide you won't vote for the republican nominee...then, yes, you are enabling Hillary Clinton.
Piffle.
I won't vote for Donald Trump. You talk about him like he's just some faceless Jenga piece, when in fact he's but unfit and insupportable.
Evidently you're just a Party man through and through, no matter what, and no matter how bad the candidate. Doesn't that bother you, even a little bit?
-
This is just a taste of what you NeverTrumpers have coming should Trump lose. The Rats will not like you and conservatives are going to downright hate you for helping to elect Hillary. Trump may be boorish but Hillary is pure evil. Trump will, from time to time, embarrass you, Hillary will bring hell to Earth every freakin day.
Blah blah blah blah, "waaahhhh, I don't want to take responsibility for my own choices!"
-
Well, there goes another legendary poster. You know the only folks chased off this pitiful excuse for a right-leaning website are Trump voters.
Trump voters, the only republican voters standing against the sorrowful loss of American sovereignty that will surely be our future if we stupidly allow ourself to elect an authoritarian, progressive left regime, headed by the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency, Hillary Clinton.
But, y'all go ahead, vote Darryl Castle 2016.
Stupid is as stupid does.
****cute kitty
:amen:
-
If you voted Republican your entire life but just now decide you won't vote for the republican nominee...then, yes, you are enabling Hillary Clinton. It's not as if you were lifelong democrats. Those we expect, but republicans? deciding not to engage?
#NeverTrump is a republican invention, and it is an abomination.
@aligncare
Abomination?
Never let politics become religion.
-
If you voted Republican your entire life but just now decide you won't vote for the republican nominee...then, yes, you are enabling Hillary Clinton. It's not as if you were lifelong democrats. Those we expect, but republicans? deciding not to engage?
#NeverTrump is a republican invention, and it is an abomination.
Consider that if I have voted Republican my entire life, I have voted four times to keep that woman away from any power whatsoever.
Then, there were at least palatable candidates, even if they increasingly did not cause an upwelling of enthusiasm because of their progressively increasing liberal histories. I voted for them knowing full well they would likely not advance Conservative causes enough to overcome the damage already done by the liberal agenda that had slipped through.
This time, the GOP has gone a bridge too far, and as far as I am concerned, they have burned it.
I'm #nevertrump, but I am also no longer affiliated with the GOP. I think you will see more of that.
-
This is just a taste of what you NeverTrumpers have coming should Trump lose. The Rats will not like you and conservatives are going to downright hate you for helping to elect Hillary. Trump may be boorish but Hillary is pure evil. Trump will, from time to time, embarrass you, Hillary will bring hell to Earth every freakin day.
Your impotence is showing. For elect-ile dysfunction lasting more than one forum post, see a doctor.
It's time.
-
It's sad that a legitimate issue like states' rights--a cause that Everett Dirksen, who encouraged the passage of the Civil Rights Act, championed, by the way, so it wasn't just a race issue--got overshadowed by that.
Dirksen was before my time but I've earned a hell of a lot of respect for the guy from what I read. His movement to repeal Reynolds v. Sims was the closest we got to an Article V convention of the states we've ever come. It's a shame he died before he could get enough states to go along with it (and not long after, the legislature engineering forced by Reynolds killed the movement). I firmly believe the implosion of states' rights was a major factor in our situation today.
It has been an issue for over 160 years, and will arise again. I would like to see the 17th Amendment repealed so the Senate was no longer just a clone of the House. If State Government issues were represented in the Senate again, I think the drift of power would be back toward the States and local government (and the People, just imposed on a local level and not a national one).
-
Sorry, Arne, but Trump's worse, far worse, than Hillary. Hillary's a conventional, corrupt politician. She's no one's choice for President, but she won't get our soldiers killed, or worse, in a egomaniacal hissy fit like Trump may.
It this comedy? Hillary has gotten us into war after war in the middle east and north Africa. Hillary says if elected she will impose a no fly zone over Syria. I wonder how Russia will react to us shooting down their war planes in Syria? Hillary is a cowardly neocon warmonger that left Americans to die in Benghazi. Trump is a saint compared to Hillary.
-
I have less animus for George W. than I do for his Father. I fault George HW Bush for horribly damaging the nation.
Breaking that promise elected Clinton. The day he did it I was screaming at the radio about what a fool he was. I knew they would use that broken promise to paint him as a "liar" in the next election.
By breaking that Promise, he gave us a Nuclear armed North Korea, Homosexuals in the military, Technology transfers to foreign governments, the Assault weapons ban, the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, and therefore the 911 terrorist attack, several Liberal supreme court and many federal court Liberal judges who make up law from the bench, and a seemingly endless stream of other disasters of varying levels of horrible.
George HW Bush was a horrible President, and he badly damaged the conservative movement.
George HW Bush was the worst mistake Reagan ever made.
You're not wrong about President Lips. ;)
But a Republican Revolution begun in 1995 ended up coming up short enough (remember: Newtie and the
Blowfish ended up spending even more than Droopy-Drawers Clinton was hoping for when it all counted,
not to mention the botched impeachment when the Republican Senate caved), and when the second
President Bush had that oh-so-necessary Republican Congress to work with (remember how "necessary"
it was for him to have that Republican Congress to get the job "done"?), what his father began he and
that good-for-nothing-much Republican Congress finished.
-
Scandel versus revoking US citizenship from those born here?
In what way is *THAT* even *CLOSE*!!!
(revoking birthright citizenship, a key Trump policy)
Trump is correct. The purpose of the 14th was to give citizenship to former slaves after the civil war, not to give citizenship to anchor babies. Do you call yourself a conservative?
-
This is just a taste of what you NeverTrumpers have coming should Trump lose. The Rats will not like you and conservatives are going to downright hate you for helping to elect Hillary. Trump may be boorish but Hillary is pure evil. Trump will, from time to time, embarrass you, Hillary will bring hell to Earth every freakin day.
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/hurr-durr-dog.jpg)
-
It this comedy? Hillary has gotten us into war after war in the middle east and north Africa. Hillary says if elected she will impose a no fly zone over Syria. I wonder how Russia will react to us shooting down their war planes in Syria? Hillary is a cowardly neocon warmonger that left Americans to die in Benghazi. Trump is a saint compared to Hillary.
You failed him. You failed Donald. You couldn't bring us to heel. Donald gave you one job. One. And you disappointed him.
You. Disappointed. Donald. You. YOU!!!
Do the honorable thing and atone your sin. The sin of disappointing... Donald.
-
I wholeheartedly agree............. grace is definitely called for here.
And I'm very glad you joined this conversation, @RAT Patrol ! :patriot:
Grace? Do you ever read all the hateful things you have said about Trump?
-
Trump is correct. The purpose of the 14th was to give citizenship to former slaves after the civil war, not to give citizenship to anchor babies. Do you call yourself a conservative?
A Conservative understands you can't revoke citizenship that's already been legally granted without causing a National uproar.
A real Conservative knows that the way to fix it is to stop future incidents of anchor babies via legislation and judicial review.
-
Grace? Do you ever read all the hateful things you have said about Trump?
Physician heal thyself.
-
Bull you are Supporting Hillary. Every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary.
Not true.
What you are saying is Trump is entitled to a vote. Many people are staying home this election. So, if everyday Americans decide to sit out this election, they're, by default, voting for Hillary?
Why isn't it the other way around? This is the same mindset that the current president had after the 2014 election were he thought he had to represent the 2/3 or 3/4 that didn't vote thereby assuming those that didn't vote really supported him
-
LOL! Your hatred of the Bushes is approaching a psychosis. They are saying nothing, yet you can't resist trashing them because they won't bend the knee in front of Trump.
HW Bush said he is voting for Clinton. W Bush calls Bill a brother from a different mother. Jeb refuses to honor is pledge to support the GOP nominee. The entire Bush family SUCKS, F them. W was one of the worse presidents ever, Ws' legacy is Obama and if polls are correct Hillary. Thanks a lot W Bush.
-
Grace? Do you ever read all the hateful things you have said about Trump?
If you consider the truth about Trump "hateful" then perhaps you should rethink your avid support of him. btw, Christians hate sin.......... is that the hate you're referring to?
Perhaps you shouldn't be here cheerleading for a corrupt, leftist degenerate, if the truth about him offends you so much.
-
This is just a taste of what you NeverTrumpers have coming should Trump lose.
That you Trump Militants will just quit and leave in a huff?
If that be the case, I'll gladly 'taste' all the flavor of tantrum and departure you have to offer and hold the door open for your exits.
The Rats will not like you
Like there's anything new there.
and conservatives are going to downright hate you for helping to elect Hillary.
WRONG.
REPUBLICANS and TRUMPIANS will hate us, you have already made that perfectly clear, simply because we have refused to embrace your prince at any time during this fiasco of an *election*. The Establishment made the fact they hate us perfectly clear long before Trump ever announced.
So again, we frankly don't give a rat's ass that we're hated. We are well aware in this day and age that this world will hate anyone standing for truth or principle.
Trump may be boorish but Hillary is pure evil.
Well, I assert Trump is a greater danger to my liberty than Hillary. Your fellow militants have made that abundantly evident.
Trump will, from time to time, embarrass you, Hillary will bring hell to Earth every freakin day.
Once again, your scare tactics don't work anymore.
We're done being frightened into supporting someone to *block* another Democrat Leftist simply because they are *worse* than the incompetent liberals you people have foisted upon the rest of us.
-
That you Trump Militants will just quit and leave in a huff?
If that be the case, I'll gladly 'taste' all the flavor of tantrum and departure you have to offer and hold the door open for your exits.
Like there's anything new there.
WRONG.
REPUBLICANS and TRUMPIANS will hate us, you have already made that perfectly clear, simply because we have refused to embrace your prince at any time during this fiasco of an *election*. The Establishment made the fact they hate us perfectly clear long before Trump ever announced.
So again, we frankly don't give a rat's ass that we're hated. We are well aware in this day and age that this world will hate anyone standing for truth or principle.
Well, I assert Trump is a greater danger to my liberty than Hillary. Your fellow militants have made that abundantly evident.
Once again, your scare tactics don't work anymore.
We're done being frightened into supporting someone to *block* another Democrat Leftist simply because they are *worse* than the incompetent liberals you people have foisted upon the rest of us.
So................... do you think this guy REALLY thinks Trump is a conservative??
Is he that deluded, or just a troll who's lying and making a fool of himself?
It's the Conservatives who oppose Trump the most because he IS the enemy. He IS a liberal.
(They can't be that dumb. It's got to be a line the trolls get paid to post. Right????)
-
I really don't think so. George Wallace's crowd (remember, he won five states) virtually vanished after Nixon was elected. Trump is dead as a political force. Anger dissipates once the target event is over.
We can all unite in support of the Republican House and be in opposition to Hillary. But Trump was an interloper, an outsider who had no business running for president. And, as many of us said on June 15, 2015, there is no way this guy could ever win the presidency.
No I will never unite with a NeverTrumper, not ever. Elect Hillary and you are on your own.
-
That is such a trumpette thing to say. Elections are not about extending grace to the candidates who want to represent us. Elections are about selecting a fit, honest and trustworthy representative. The grace is actually a duty to all our fellow citizens. We betray them when we choose unwisely.
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate, look to his character. The scriptures teach that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multified frauds, breaches of trust, and embezzlement of public property which tarnish the character of our country and disgrace government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility, he sacrifices not only his interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country." Noah Webster, 1823
I guess he believes in "cheap grace." (i.e. meaningless)
Besides which, I was agreeing with offering grace to a guy who's obviously very angry, but whom I still believe is a good guy.
The Trumpists' bringing up grace for Donald was a stupid diversion from the reality that his hero is a degenerate........ an unrepentant degenerate to boot.
-
No I will never unit with a NeverTrumper, not ever. Elect Hillary and you are on your own.
You failed him. You failed Donald. You couldn't bring us to heel. Donald gave you one job. One. And you disappointed him.
You. Disappointed. Donald. You. YOU!!!
Do the honorable thing and atone your sin. The sin of disappointing... Donald.
-
I really don't think so. George Wallace's crowd (remember, he won five states) virtually vanished after Nixon was elected. Trump is dead as a political force. Anger dissipates once the target event is over.
We can all unite in support of the Republican House and be in opposition to Hillary. But Trump was an interloper, an outsider who had no business running for president. And, as many of us said on June 15, 2015, there is no way this guy could ever win the presidency.
It only disappears if the one stoking the anger disappears. Trump is, in my view, *VERY* intent on continuing to stoke his supporters anger.
-
Trump is correct. The purpose of the 14th was to give citizenship to former slaves after the civil war, not to give citizenship to anchor babies. Do you call yourself a conservative?
That goes against 150 years of judicial precedent. You are wrong. Your candidate is wrong.
And stripping the citizenship of Americans is an unmitigated evil.
-
It only disappears if the one stoking the anger disappears. Trump is, in my view, *VERY* intent on continuing to stoke his supporters anger.
Well, Donald sees failure as disloyalty. In prewar Japan, Seppuuku would be demanded. The Triads would demand a finger be taken. But Donald is merciful. He will give them a chance to atone by bearing the burden of his disappointment until face is restored.
-
I must disagree. If Hillary is elected we will have 4 years of a bad president ... if she lasts four years. She is not the ideologue about muslims that Obama is so we've got that. A lot of no-trump votes are voting down ticket so we may not lose the house and Senate ... we usually win that. Hillary does not have the Black support that automatically went to Obama. She will not be elected again. She wouldn't have been elected this time if certain events hadn't conspired to somehow make the unthinkable happen.
But we cannot put Trump in as a Republican/conservative candidate. He is a horrible dirty joke and not fit to represent the party. If he is roundly defeated, as he will be, the party can regroup and try to redeem itself. We do have some good leaders and they will need to rise up and have courage. Ted Cruz is one. Mike Lee another.
Hillary may not be elected again; but with her importing hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees and granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants the demographics of this country change; those new voters will be voting DEM; therefore we won't see another REP win an election and states that were blue will be red. The good leaders that we have will be voted out of office in 2018; some may survive until 2020. This country will be overrun by immigrants led by progressive liberals; the sovereignty of this country will be lost. Perhaps in the future people like Cruz or Lee may decide to rise up to form another party or join the Constitution party if it still exists, but I don't see a whole lot of hope for this country in the near future should Hillary become our president. In fact, we will lose our country. It will be over.
-
I don't think it can be retroactive. Once a citizen then that is it. I think it is just about correcting court overreach. If we believe in the idea of anchor babies, let the legislators vote for it. The courts overstepped by attaching that to the 14th Amendment. It was a violation of the separation of powers. Where is the check on the judiciary?
Not that I believe Trump about this or anything else.
The courts overreached?
It went to the Supreme court. It's been settled.
Until Trump made it an issue.
-
Hillary may not be elected again; but with her importing hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees and granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants the demographics of this country change; those new voters will be voting DEM; therefore we won't see another REP win an election and states that were blue will be red. The good leaders that we have will be voted out of office in 2018; some may survive until 2020. This country will be overrun by immigrants led by progressive liberals; the sovereignty of this country will be lost. Perhaps in the future people like Cruz or Lee may decide to rise up to form another party or join the Constitution party if it still exists, but I don't see a whole lot of hope for this country in the near future should Hillary become our president. In fact, we will lose our country. It will be over.
Yep. Some lines can't be uncrossed.
-
Trump is correct. The purpose of the 14th was to give citizenship to former slaves after the civil war, not to give citizenship to anchor babies. Do you call yourself a conservative?
So then, in keeping with the interpretation style favored by you and the great orange constitutional scholar, since the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to establish a "well regulated militia" and as a result of our standing army and National Guard providing for the security of the State, private ownership of firearms is not protected by the BoR.
-
Yes the courts overreached. They do it all the time.
As for the anchor baby issue, Trump did not start that. It has been a complaint of conservatives for years. If you want to have that, it is the job of the legislature to pass a bill and a president to sign it.
http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/mark-levin-explains-why-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-give-anchor-babies-american-citizenship
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Where is that slave thing you're all talking about?
-
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Where is that slave thing you're all talking about?
Louis, forgive me but, these words you speak... I don't think you grasp the gravity here, what it is you're asking.
Donald did not write these words and they hold no power over him. You are asking this man to be disloyal to Donald. Don't you realize what that means? To accept your 'constitution' and 'BOR' he would have to accept a higher authority than Donald.
No I think we can agree such a concept is absurd on it's face. The mere thought of something greater than Donald? Preposterous! Clearly this is a troll to bait him into an at of disloyalty. You cannot possibly expect him to disappoint Donald?
-
HW Bush said he is voting for Clinton. W Bush calls Bill a brother from a different mother. Jeb refuses to honor is pledge to support the GOP nominee. The entire Bush family SUCKS, F them. W was one of the worse presidents ever, Ws' legacy is Obama and if polls are correct Hillary. Thanks a lot W Bush.
How convenient of you to forgot that it wasn't too long ago that the Donald was big buds with the Clintons. So much so that he invited them to his third wedding. He even said what a great president the Beast would make and defended Bill. His daughter was also big buds with the Clinton's daughter. I have know doubt both he and his children voted for the Beast when she was the Senator in New York. It wasn't until he got bored with his life and decided the run for president that he then determined she was a bad person. I guess that means the the entire tRump family sucks.
-
No I will never unite with a NeverTrumper, not ever. Elect Hillary and you are on your own.
We won't be electing Hillary. But if Hillary becomes President, you can unite with us against her policies, or you can unite with her against us.
This, my dear acquaintance, is what one would call "a taste of your own medicine."
-
Oh exactly. We offer a bit of grace to a poster and they use it as a knife completely out of context. They must protect their beloved Trump. It is really really off the mark for them to be so blindly devoted to him. They should rewrite that song "Hopelessly devoted to you" for Trump. (I don't know if that's the title. I just remember the phrase.)
I've noticed how the Trump trolls come after Christians opposed to Trump on moral, Scriptural grounds with holier-than-thou personal attacks against the Christians.
It's pretty obvious what their motives are, and they're not admirable.
Not only have they put their love for Trump above the good of the country, the Republican party and Conservatism, but they put their Trump love above what is right and what is wrong.
It's shameful, but I'm not going to be deterred by their ad hominems against us. I will not stop posting the truth about who Trump is no matter how stupid or nasty the attacks of Trump lovers become.
-
It this comedy? Hillary has gotten us into war after war in the middle east and north Africa. Hillary says if elected she will impose a no fly zone over Syria. I wonder how Russia will react to us shooting down their war planes in Syria? Hillary is a cowardly neocon warmonger that left Americans to die in Benghazi. Trump is a saint compared to Hillary.
Hate to bust your bubble, but Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had absolutely no authority in the military chain of command to order a rescue/relief mission, nor did she have the command authority to tell one to stand down. That has to come from the top, and belongs on one person only: Barrack H. Obama.
I have little doubt that DOS machinations set up the situation that led to that attack and the outcome, but The Secretary of State does not command troops.
-
That you Trump Militants will just quit and leave in a huff?
If that be the case, I'll gladly 'taste' all the flavor of tantrum and departure you have to offer and hold the door open for your exits.
Like there's anything new there.
WRONG.
REPUBLICANS and TRUMPIANS will hate us, you have already made that perfectly clear, simply because we have refused to embrace your prince at any time during this fiasco of an *election*. The Establishment made the fact they hate us perfectly clear long before Trump ever announced.
So again, we frankly don't give a rat's ass that we're hated. We are well aware in this day and age that this world will hate anyone standing for truth or principle.
Well, I assert Trump is a greater danger to my liberty than Hillary. Your fellow militants have made that abundantly evident.
Once again, your scare tactics don't work anymore.
We're done being frightened into supporting someone to *block* another Democrat Leftist simply because they are *worse* than the incompetent liberals you people have foisted upon the rest of us.
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
-
Ideally that is true. It's just that some state governments are so corrupt that they would send worse senators than the people themselves select. Perhaps it would be good overall anyway just because the goal would be to protect the rights of the state. But I can't help but think that at this point the two parties would just collude to plant partisans in the Senate who still only care about federal control for their particular political party. Way back when travel and communication were far more limited, it was easier to contain those interests. Now it sort of depends on both which party holds power in a state AND whether or not they are true to federalism/constitutional principles. Just like everything else, it is liable to rock back and forth as power shirts back and forth over time.
In summary, I'm a little afraid that rather than selecting senators that would rein in the federal government's overreach, it would work the opposite by expanding the federal reach further into the various states.
I think the long range effect would be to get more people involved on their State (and local) levels. You want to fix Washington, it starts in your back yard. Repealing the 17th would bring that home. The other effect, though, is that some Federal programs enacted as 'universal fixes' favor some regions and hurt others.
Imagine your flyover country state not being stuck with what California and the Northeast population centers think is appropriate, much less ICLEI (UN Agenda 21 for locals).
-
So then, in keeping with the interpretation style favored by you and the great orange constitutional scholar, since the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to establish a "well regulated militia" and as a result of our standing army and National Guard providing for the security of the State, private ownership of firearms is not protected by the BoR.
Nope. The Second specifically states "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is no way to read and misinterpret that except by will fully ignoring the language used.
Place it in historical contest by reading the Federalist, and it's a lock. The right belongs to the people.
-
Nope. The Second specifically states "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is no way to read and misinterpret that except by will fully ignoring the language used.
Place it in historical contest by reading the Federalist, and it's a lock. The right belongs to the people.
One can argue that the term "the People" does not refer to "the Individual".
I don't agree, but it's a valid case.
-
One can argue that the term "the People" does not refer to "the Individual".
I don't agree, but it's a valid case.
No. Not when every other Right in the Bill of Rights reserved to the individual is just that, a Right of the People. Nor when in the Federalist during the discussion of the size of (and if there should be) a Federal Army, it was decided that if the Army tried to usurp power the people by sheer force of numbers and using their arms, even lacking martial training, would be able to prevail.
Then the example of the practice of the day, including privately owned cannon. Every military arm of the day which the individual could afford was available to be owned by the individual, and was, depending on the means of the individual. (Think ship owners and canon).
-
Nope. The Second specifically states "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is no way to read and misinterpret that except by will fully ignoring the language used.
Place it in historical contest by reading the Federalist, and it's a lock. The right belongs to the people.
You're not getting what I meant.
If one is to read what is NOT in the text of the US Constitution, and instead opt to interpret the rights protected by the intention of some of the Framers at the time that the Amendment was written, then one has to give the same constant reading to every part of the Constitution.
To interpret the intent of the Second is easy if that is how you wish to read the Amendment... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" being the intent, then the right to bear arms is subject to it.
It's not. And whatever the intent of the XIV Amendment may have been at the time of its ratification, the words are simple: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Mind yoi, another poster raised a question about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that they did not intend to make citizens out of people whose [parents were loyal to another country. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IN THE AMENDMENT. It says that anyone born on this soil, and subject to the applicable laws of the land and society, are citizens.
If they weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" (A.K.A. subject to all applicable laws) of the United States then what right would the U.S. government have to deport them, since they're not subject to our immigration or entry laws?
-
If the militia is not regulated (constrained), the state will not remain free for long. Thus, being able to contain the ambitions of that militia by practical means is a necessity to remaining free: to a "free State". To that end, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed makes perfect sense.
-
And whatever the intent of the XIV Amendment may have been at the time of its ratification, the words are simple: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Mind yoi, another poster raised a question about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that they did not intend to make citizens out of people whose [parents were loyal to another country. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IN THE AMENDMENT. It says that anyone born on this soil, and subject to the applicable laws of the land and society, are citizens.
If they weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" (A.K.A. subject to all applicable laws) of the United States then what right would the U.S. government have to deport them, since they're not subject to our immigration or entry laws?
I addressed the Second in the previous post. To elaborate a smidgin more, to regulate is to constrain, by law or physical force. So it is with everything from speed limits to gas pressures. I do not understand the semantic gymnastics of those who would have that mean "trained"--any Militia would be. The concern instead, with the existence of a Free State in mind, would especially be that that Militia would turn against its own people and seize power. That is where the constraint comes in, that constraint to be provided by the People, armed, and thus the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As for those born on this soil and subject to applicable law and jurisdiction, yep that is what it says. Those not subject thereto would be the children of diplomats and visiting heads of state and their retinues. ("diplomatic immunity")
The argument can certainly be made that all visiting here, whether legally or illegally are subject to our laws, should we enforce them.
-
If they are here illegally, they clearly are not subject to the immigration laws. It is absurd to think that we owe full citizenship to any child of someone who stole her way across the border. The very minimum should be that they are here legally. Otherwise any enemy or thief could steal the benefits of citizenship. It is like saying you owe dinner at your house both to those you invited to dinner and to those who broke in to your house. Sweet deal for burglars.
Then that should be clarified, even though I agree. End the anchor baby mess by stopping the birthright citizenship for people not legally here. If illegals were not subject to our laws and jurisdiction, then we couldn't arrest them for bank robbery or drug smuggling. :shrug:
This has, indeed, been a sweet deal for those burglars.
-
If they are here illegally, they clearly are not subject to the immigration laws. It is absurd to think that we owe full citizenship to any child of someone who stole her way across the border. The very minimum should be that they are here legally. Otherwise any enemy or thief could steal the benefits of citizenship. It is like saying you owe dinner at your house both to those you invited to dinner and to those who broke in to your house. Sweet deal for burglars.
If they are not subject to our laws, they can't be here illegally, because then their being here could be defined by our laws. So to even say that they are here illegally, or not here legally, means that they are subject to our laws, or under the jurisdiction of our laws.
If you are born on US soil, and subject to US laws, you are a citizen, and since all people (other than foreign diplomats and their children) on US soil are subject to US laws, than anyone who is both born on US soil and subject to US kaws is a citizen at birth.
-
Then that should be clarified, even though I agree. End the anchor baby mess by stopping the birthright citizenship for people not legally here. If illegals were not subject to our laws and jurisdiction, then we couldn't arrest them for bank robbery or drug smuggling. :shrug:
This has, indeed, been a sweet deal for those burglars.
Exactly, so illegals are illegal because they are subject to (or under the jurisdiction of) our laws, making theur babies citizens.
You can't have it both ways. If they're NOT under our jurisdiction (subject to our laws) then they can't be deported because the immigration laws do not affect them.
-
Exactly, so illegals are illegal because they are subject to (or under the jurisdiction of) our laws, making theur babies citizens.
You can't have it both ways. If they're NOT under our jurisdiction (subject to our laws) then they can't be deported because the immigration laws do not affect them.
Nor could they be arrested for any crime.
-
If the militia is not regulated (constrained), the state will not remain free for long. Thus, being able to contain the ambitions of that militia by practical means is a necessity to remaining free: to a "free State". To that end, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed makes perfect sense.
You know that we're in agreement on this, right?
I'm playing Devil's Advocate to those who want to use intent to define the meaning of any particular part of the US Constitution.
-
You failed him. You failed Donald. You couldn't bring us to heel. Donald gave you one job. One. And you disappointed him.
You. Disappointed. Donald. You. YOU!!!
Do the honorable thing and atone your sin. The sin of disappointing... Donald.
hahaha... Nothing to do now but fall on the sword.
-
You know that we're in agreement on this, right?
I'm playing Devil's Advocate to those who want to use intent to define the meaning of any particular part of the US Constitution.
I figured as much. I just wanted to crush the line of reasoning that misled people into believing the RKBA is anything but an individual right.
Unfortunately, the meanings of words change. When there is any doubt as to the particular meaning of a phrase in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, one has to look at the usage of the words at the time of those being written. Where that is less than clear (not often), intent is the guide to the meaning of the language of the passage at issue, and that intent is often quite clearly stated elsewhere in other writings. In general, the Founders were careful to write unambiguously, and most ambiguity is only introduced later by people who seek to subvert the intent of the Founders and the letter of the law. With that in mind, it is an unsupportable argument that the Founders would have found any of the restrictions on the RKBA from the NFA of 1934 onward to be Constitutional.
If there is a problem with the letter of the law, and it needs to be modified in order to cope with situations (such as the looting of the Unconstitutional welfare system by illegal aliens, or 'anchor babies'), then the law should be changed to encompass the situation and achieve the desired outcome. If that requires a Constitutional Amendment, so be it. The Fourteenth could be amended by adding the words underlined and in bold: All persons born or naturalized of parents legally present in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside" to exclude those born of illegal alien parents.
-
This is just a taste of what you NeverTrumpers have coming should Trump lose. The Rats will not like you and conservatives are going to downright hate you for helping to elect Hillary
NeverTrumpers ARE the conservatives, and the NeverTrumpers are 100% correct. The truth is usually met with hate.
-
NeverTrumpers ARE the conservatives, and the NeverTrumpers are 100% correct. The truth is usually met with hate.
You are correct! (He cracked me up with that cognitive disconnect.)
-
You failed him. You failed Donald. You couldn't bring us to heel. Donald gave you one job. One. And you disappointed him.
You. Disappointed. Donald. You. YOU!!!
Do the honorable thing and atone your sin. The sin of disappointing... Donald.
As @sneakypete would say, Do it, do it now!
-
We won't be electing Hillary. But if Hillary becomes President, you can unite with us against her policies, or you can unite with her against us.
This, my dear acquaintance, is what one would call "a taste of your own medicine."
If the NeverTrumpers elect Hillary I am done with politics. Under a president Hillary there is no point in voting or donating to her opposition. She will weaponize the entire federal government against conservatives and there is not a damn thing that can be done to stop her once she becomes president. So yeah, you elect her you deal with her.
-
NeverTrumpers ARE the conservatives, and the NeverTrumpers are 100% correct. The truth is usually met with hate.
No you're not, no conservative would ever help elect Hillary Clinton, no, not ever.
-
If the NeverTrumpers elect Hillary I am done with politics. Under a president Hillary there is no point in voting or donating to her opposition. She will weaponize the entire federal government against conservatives and there is not a damn thing that can be done to stop her once she becomes president. So yeah, you elect her you deal with her.
Who did you vote for in the primaries?
-
If they are here illegally, they clearly are not subject to the immigration laws. It is absurd to think that we owe full citizenship to any child of someone who stole her way across the border. The very minimum should be that they are here legally. Otherwise any enemy or thief could steal the benefits of citizenship. It is like saying you owe dinner at your house both to those you invited to dinner and to those who broke in to your house. Sweet deal for burglars.
With a Hillary presidency it's not going to matter if they are here illegally or legally and she will certainly 'revisit' our rights under the second amendment.
-
As @sneakypete would say, Do it, do it now!
Can you imagine the disgust that a great man like Donald has for those who fail him? They should look into Donald's eyes on their "Trump as George Washington" memes they post or his visage on their Trump commemorative plates and wither under his steely gaze!
Wither!
In SHAME!
The shame of failing Donald.
It really hurts me to type that. It really does. I'll be the first to admit that I have no use for Trump but I'm still human despite my hard heart. I take no joy in knowing that their lives are without meaning now. Cursed walk the earth as living shells of people. It's a curious form of undeath I think. Every breath they draw taking in not only the air that sustains them, but air filled with the disappointment of Donald, traveling through their lungs and bringing disappointment filled oxygen to every cell in their bodies.
Eventually I think that as Donald's disappointment with them grows, they will begin to calcify because being separated from the light of Donald, their bodies will yearn for any contact with te great one and as such, Donald's disappointment will build up in their systems like a waste product. The waste of trust Donald put in them. And eventually they will stand as statues, frozen in a state of shame so that the world may look upon them.
And a new legend will be born.
The legend....of Donald's Disappointment.
Coming soon to theaters in IMAX 3D and Dolby Atmos (where available).
-
With a Hillary presidency it's not going to matter if they are here illegally or legally and she will certainly 'revisit' our rights under the second amendment.
That wouldn't be a concern had stupid people not elected lesser evil Republican congressmen. But stupid people, being stupid, didn't think ahead. They wanted instant gratification and filled the House and Senate with Republicans that cannot be trusted to tell the soon to be President Clinton II to find a bridge to jump off.
-
Rudy disagrees. As a fed prosecutor I think he'd be qualified to assess if it was.
I get your point about the VE kiss. I'm as anti SJW/feminist as it gets and believe people have taken things too far. The VE Kiss was not a planned "Move on her like a bitch". It was a one off spontaneous type thing with no malice of forethought. But Trump has established a pattern and his words have legal ramifications should anyone file charges.
@Suppressed
First let me explain that I am not a snowflake. My first career was in a male dominated field. When I went back to college for my second career I was the only female in all of my classes and the only female on the job for a number of years.
You don't understand how much pressure a female is under in a male dominated career to handle these incidents "gracefully". You need to get out of the excruciatingly uncomfortable and embarrassing situation leaving the offending male with his ego intact, while still making it clear that his "attentions" are unwelcome and without leaving an opening for the men to call you "a bitch", "not a team player" and other things that hamper work relationships and damage your reputation.
The entertainment industry is male dominate and extremely competitive. Trump's behavior is no different than any other man who takes advantage of his position. (For instance Bill Clinton).
I am no feminist. I find these easily offended young ladies who whimper over every masculine display embarrassing. Neither should I have to suffer unwelcome touching of my person simply because I am female and the male has a position superior to mine.
-
No you're not, no conservative would ever help elect Hillary Clinton, no, not ever.
Your simplistic and completely false narrative that because we don't support one Lib we're helping the other Lib get elected is worn out and tiresome.
Quit lying.
-
First let me explain that I am not a snowflake. My first career was in a male dominated field. When I went back to college for my second career I was the only female in all of my classes and the only female on the job for a number of years.
You don't understand how much pressure a female is under in a male dominated career to handle these incidents "gracefully". You need to get out of the excruciatingly uncomfortable and embarrassing situation leaving the offending male with his ego intact, while still making it clear that his "attentions" are unwelcome and without leaving an opening for the men to call you "a bitch", "not a team player" and other things that hamper work relationships and damage your reputation.
The entertainment industry is male dominate and extremely competitive. Trump's behavior is no different than any other man who takes advantage of his position. (For instance Bill Clinton).
I am no feminist. I find these easily offended young ladies who whimper over every masculine display embarrassing. Neither should I have to suffer unwelcome touching of my person simply because I am female and the male has a position superior to mine.
I agree completely and I do understand. I have a daughter thats ex military and now in the defense industry. Believe me I understand.
The only way to change it is to ensure people like Trump are barred from power. If they are that grabby, you can best believe their skills as a boss are going to lead to other issues for the company.
Snowflake women are a pox on the workforce to be sure and have ended the careers of good men unjustly. Hell, I had one go to HR on me because I opened a door for her. (she got laughed out of the office). But if the guy is gonna get on TV/Radio and brag about his BS, thats a bridge too far for any sane person.
-
If the NeverTrumpers elect Hillary I am done with politics. Under a president Hillary there is no point in voting or donating to her opposition. She will weaponize the entire federal government against conservatives and there is not a damn thing that can be done to stop her once she becomes president. So yeah, you elect her you deal with her.
Oh, this canard again.
Let's be clear - if anyone is responsible for Hillary, it is the Trumpettes.
#NeverTrump was clear from the get-go: we won't vote for either liberal asshat, Trump or Hillary. Despite our assurances of no support for Trump, you Trumpettes decided to nominate this stupid, liberal train wreck anyway, knowing that to win, you would need #NeverTrump support - support you would NEVER get (um, hence the name NEVERTrump).
You purposefully drove the car into a ditch and are now blaming people who weren't anywhere near your car.
Nice try. You chose a turd sandwich for a candidate. You bear ALL the responsibility when he loses to Hillary.
All of it.
-
If the NeverTrumpers elect Hillary I am done with politics. Under a president Hillary there is no point in voting or donating to her opposition. She will weaponize the entire federal government against conservatives and there is not a damn thing that can be done to stop her once she becomes president. So yeah, you elect her you deal with her.
OK so thats a check in the Hillary column. If more of you took that pledge I'd bet people actually would vote for her just to get your kind out of the political process forever. It would be worth 4 years of hell because you wouldn't be there to hose us in the next election pushing your liberal BS.
-
OK so thats a check in the Hillary column. If more of you took that pledge I'd bet people actually would vote for her just to get your kind out of the political process forever. It would be worth 4 years of hell because you wouldn't be there to hose us in the next election pushing your liberal BS.
Oh yes they would. You know they wouldn't keep their word.
-
Oh yes they would. You know they wouldn't keep their word.
Indeed. You cant trust a word they speak.
-
@Suppressed
First let me explain that I am not a snowflake. My first career was in a male dominated field. When I went back to college for my second career I was the only female in all of my classes and the only female on the job for a number of years.
You don't understand how much pressure a female is under in a male dominated career to handle these incidents "gracefully". You need to get out of the excruciatingly uncomfortable and embarrassing situation leaving the offending male with his ego intact, while still making it clear that his "attentions" are unwelcome and without leaving an opening for the men to call you "a bitch", "not a team player" and other things that hamper work relationships and damage your reputation.
The entertainment industry is male dominate and extremely competitive. Trump's behavior is no different than any other man who takes advantage of his position. (For instance Bill Clinton).
I am no feminist. I find these easily offended young ladies who whimper over every masculine display embarrassing. Neither should I have to suffer unwelcome touching of my person simply because I am female and the male has a position superior to mine.
@ConstitutionRose
I agree with everything you've said here.
I'm not a feminist, either. I view a whistle or a compliment from a man as just that---a compliment. I don't have anything in common with liberal women who exude man hatred and discomfort with their own femininity.
I've been followeed into rooms and backed up against the wall by a man who wanted to force himself on me. I took care of it myself; I outlined to him what would happen to his anatomy if he didn't leave me alone. There were no problems afterward. IMO, the type of man who does this not only wants sex, but enjoys the intimidation and the domination of females.
Because I'm no feminist, and because I've always liked men and defended them, I never expected to find myself having to deal with conservative men who bend over backward to excuse a sexual predator. This isn't gender studies here and we're not talking about some "women's issue." It comes down to basic decency. I will be damned before I give any quarter to men (or women) who expect me to be tolerant of someone who views me as a piece of meat to be groped and felt up.
-
This isn't gender studies here and we're not talking about some "women's issue." It comes down to basic decency. I will be damned before I give any quarter to men (or women) who expect me to be tolerant of someone who views me as a piece of meat to be groped and felt up.
It would be interesting to correlate the identities of those who defend Trump now, against their positions on Bill Clinton's transgressions, some of which fall into the same category of groping and worse.
Of course, the truth is that they're not actually defending Trump's groping activity, so much as they're defending their own support of Trump's candidacy. And, more than that, I think for most of them it's not so much support for Trump, as it is a visceral feeling about the importance of defeating Hillary Clinton.
So the question is not, "how can you defend Trump's groping?"
Instead it's, "How much and what kinds of bad behavior are you willing to overlook so that you can still support Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton?"
The answer is, apparently, "I'm willing to excuse and overlook a lot."
If that's not an exercise in soul-selling, I don't know what is.
-
It would be interesting to correlate the identities of those who defend Trump now, against their positions on Bill Clinton's transgressions, some of which fall into the same category of groping and worse.
Of course, the truth is that they're not actually defending Trump's groping activity, so much as they're defending their own support of Trump's candidacy. And, more than that, I think for most of them it's not so much support for Trump, as it is a visceral feeling about the importance of defeating Hillary Clinton.
So the question is not, "how can you defend Trump's groping?"
Instead it's, "How much and what kinds of bad behavior are you willing to overlook so that you can still support Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton?"
The answer is, apparently, "I'm willing to excuse and overlook a lot."
If that's not an exercise in soul-selling, I don't know what is.
I assure you that Trump is not their first foray into lesser evil/situational ethics. You need only look at their raft of excuses for empowering a liberal and defending a sexual abuser.
The absolute best thing you can say for them is that they are situational ethicists. -Best.- It degenerates from there. They are not to be trusted, to be believed and any sane person would expunge them from their lives as a matter of safety for themselves and their families. You simply cannot be sure their ethics on any issue will not change on a dime. they have proven they can and do with the right payoff.
-
Nor does it need to. You're responding to selective parts of my post, so I'll ask again---if he didn't ask before he kissed them, do you think he asked, "Can I grab your p-word?"
Do you really think that happened?
@CatherineofAragon
There have been times in my life when I've touched a woman intimately. And I don't ever recall asking for permission. You sound like these SJWs who want a consent form filled out, when in the real world consent is often granted without a form or verbal request.
If no non-verbal consent was granted, then it was sexual assault. But the only bit of information pro-or-con that we have about consent was that he said that they let him do it. So there's no evidence that he was saying, "I force myself on unconsenting women."
He was bragging that they DO consent!
Now you're assuming he was leaning in and testing the waters; he neither said nor implied it.
No, I don't assume anything. This is exactly where the difference is. I'm saying we can't assume a specific meaning to what he said, since it's ambiguous. It could have been either.
On the other hand, you're making the assumption of the worst-case scenario.
Seriously? Kissing is not the sexual assault---it's the grabbing of the crotch. The genitals, the private area, whatever. You didn't miss that part, did you?
So it's okay to grab a woman and kiss her without consent, but grabbing the crotch is where the line is drawn? Interesting worldview you have.
Yes, intimate areas are required for sexual assault, but that doesn't mean that one can grab a woman off the street and forcibly kiss her (unless it's V-E Day).
Rudy Giuliani, the former prosecutor, admitted it was assault, but you conveniently edited out that part of my post.
And you left out that he said that he questioned whether Trump had done things.
But that would ruin your narrative that Giuliani is claiming Trump admitted to sexual assault. Let's remember, that was your original contention...that Trump had admitted to sexual assault.
And I questioned it. He did no such thing. He gave an ambiguous statement that you choose to interpret one way. If there was consent to the touching, it is not sexual abuse (NYS legal term for sexual assault), by statute. (Note, I'm not a lawyer.)
-
The absolute best thing you can say for them is that they are situational ethicists. -Best.- It degenerates from there. They are not to be trusted, to be believed and any sane person would expunge them from their lives as a matter of safety for themselves and their families. You simply cannot be sure their ethics on any issue will not change on a dime. they have proven they can and do with the right payoff.
It's definitely true of some, especially those of the Hannity/Limbaugh class who hold themselves out as "thought leaders." That sort of person must and should be held accountable for their views, and their publicly-stated views deserve the presumption of being thought-out beforehand. They have a duty to the truth, and for cynical reasons have failed to do it.
But I think it's not true in general. I think a lot of people are so focused on the awfulness of a Hillary Clinton victory -- and it will be awful -- that they feel they must vote for Trump, regardless. Up to a point (which may never be reached for some), the end justifies the means.
It's a form of moral weakness that most of us have fallen prey to at various times in our own lives. I know I have.
-
Because I'm no feminist, and because I've always liked men and defended them, I never expected to find myself having to deal with conservative men who bend over backward to excuse a sexual predator. This isn't gender studies here and we're not talking about some "women's issue." It comes down to basic decency. I will be damned before I give any quarter to men (or women) who expect me to be tolerant of someone who views me as a piece of meat to be groped and felt up.
No excuses for sexual predation.
But you're the one who is saying that Donald Trump is admitting to being an abuser. I say he admits no such thing.
-
[/b]And I questioned it. He did no such thing. He gave an ambiguous statement that you choose to interpret one way. If there was consent to the touching, it is not sexual abuse (NYS legal term for sexual assault), by statute. (Note, I'm not a lawyer.)
You're using an awful lot of words.
Let's just cut to the chase, shall we?
If somebody did to your daughter what Trump admits doing to women against their will, how would you react?
-
It's definitely true of some, especially those of the Hannity/Limbaugh class who hold themselves out as "thought leaders." That sort of person must and should be held accountable for their views, and their publicly-stated views deserve the presumption of being thought-out beforehand. They have a duty to the truth, and for cynical reasons have failed to do it.
But I think it's not true in general. I think a lot of people are so focused on the awfulness of a Hillary Clinton victory -- and it will be awful -- that they feel they must vote for Trump, regardless. Up to a point (which may never be reached for some), the end justifies the means.
It's a form of moral weakness that most of us have fallen prey to at various times in our own lives. I know I have.
If your ethics change it really does not matter why. By definition the change was based on a situation that caused that change. Thus situational ethics.
Fear voting is a supreme example of situational ethics.
-
If your ethics change it really does not matter why. By definition the change was based on a situation that caused that change. Thus situational ethics.
Fear voting is a supreme example of situational ethics.
And of course you've never, ever, ever done anything that smacks of "situational ethics."
C'mon, Norm.
-
And of course you've never, ever, ever done anything that smacks of "situational ethics."
C'mon, Norm.
Not for a long time. I'm as human as you are. I also learned my lesson from the bad results it incurred. You cannot tell me that abandoning conservative principle out of fear is not situational when the very people doing it still claim to be conservatives.
-
Not for a long time. I'm as human as you are. I also learned my lesson from the bad results it incurred. You cannot tell me that abandoning conservative principle out of fear is not situational when the very people doing it still claim to be conservatives.
I learned my lesson about this in a situation that was similar to this one, in a lot of ways. One thing it taught me, is that it's necessary to be more forgiving than you are apparently willing to do.
People support Trump for a lot of different reasons, a big one being a justified opposition to Hillary Clinton.
When it comes to people's motivations, it's not really a question of "abandoning conservative principle" -- not on a conscious level, at any rate. To many, it's a matter of trying to maintain what one believes to be the correct position in the face of two intolerable choices.
I'm sorry, Norm, but on this matter you're coming across like a Pharisee.
Imagine the state of today's church if Jesus would only accept those disciples who had no sin.... it wouldn't exist.
And if you're only going to accept as political allies those who are without sin (as you define it), you're going to have a convention with one delegate. Or zero, if you're honest with yourself.
-
But you're the one who is saying that Donald Trump is admitting to being an abuser. I say he admits no such thing.
Sorry...but you're wrong.
-
I learned my lesson about this in a situation that was similar to this one, in a lot of ways. One thing it taught me, is that it's necessary to be more forgiving than you are apparently willing to do.
I'm sorry, Norm, but on this matter you're coming across like a Pharisee.
I'm good with that. It doesn't change the fact that situational ethics are what they are. I'm not perfect and don't claim to be.
But NO ONE should be forgiven for A: intentionally and knowingly flushing their supposedly deeply held beliefs for a serial sex abuser. liar and fraud and B: they arent asking for it anyway.
-
I'm good with that. It doesn't change the fact that situational ethics are what they are. I'm not perfect and don't claim to be.
No, you're just claiming to be more perfect than they are.
But NO ONE should be forgiven for A: intentionally and knowingly flushing their supposedly deeply held beliefs for a serial sex abuser. liar and fraud and B: they arent asking for it anyway.
Yes, but.
We can acknowledge that the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity should know better.
But they're not representative of most people who are faced with the intolerable choice between Trump and Clinton -- of whom Clinton seems worse.
The truth is that there are a whole lot of good people who are trying to find a way to justify a vote for Trump that is not too morally compromised. I happen to believe they can't do it, as do you.
The difference between you and me seems to be that I do understand and sympathize with their situation, whereas you, apparently, refuse to do so. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt as to your capacity for understanding.)
-
No, you're just claiming to be more perfect than they are.
Yes, but.
We can acknowledge that the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity should know better.
But they're not representative of most people who are faced with the intolerable choice between Trump and Clinton -- of whom Clinton seems worse.
The truth is that there are a whole lot of good people who are trying to find a way to justify a vote for Trump that is not too morally compromised. I happen to believe they can't do it, as do you.
The difference between you and me seems to be that I do understand and sympathize with their situation, whereas you, apparently, refuse to do so. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt as to your capacity for understanding.)
Isn't anyone that stands on principle and who does whats right in the face of whats wrong in a better position than someone that does whats wrong in the face of whats right? Isn't that what we are supposed to do as people? Strive to morality and not make excuses why we can't?
The problem is that people are so afraid to do whats right they will excuse whats wrong lest they be seen as arrogant, purist, holier than thou or whatever. I'm not. I don't care what anyone thinks of me. I only care about the truth of the matter. Nor is forgiveness mine to give in the first place. I don't see why anyone that thinks me an idiot cares whether I forgive them or not. So thats not really even an issue.
-
Isn't anyone that stands on principle and who does whats right in the face of whats wrong in a better position than someone that does whats wrong in the face of whats right? Isn't that what we are supposed to do as people? Strive to morality and not make excuses why we can't?
Sure. But the fact is that everybody stumbles. Everybody. And in the case of Trump vs. Clinton, "trying to do what's right" can be difficult to discern.
The problem is that people are so afraid to do whats right they will excuse whats wrong lest they be seen as arrogant, purist, holier than thou or whatever.
And again: while there are those who may meet that description, most do not. They're trying to do the right thing in a situation where "right" is hard to figure out. You're apparently lumping everybody into the same hole, regardless of how they've arrived at their position.
I'm not. I don't care what anyone thinks of me. I only care about the truth of the matter. Nor is forgiveness mine to give in the first place.
That sounds like a recipe for a very sterile life. And the Norm Lenhart Political Party will have at most a single member.
I don't see why anyone that thinks me an idiot cares whether I forgive them or not. So thats not really even an issue.
What if they don't think you're an idiot? What if they just disagree with you about something?
-
Sure. But the fact is that everybody stumbles. Everybody. And in the case of Trump vs. Clinton, "trying to do what's right" can be difficult to discern.
And again: while there are those who may meet that description, most do not. They're trying to do the right thing in a situation where "right" is hard to figure out. You're apparently lumping everybody into the same hole, regardless of how they've arrived at their position.
That sounds like a recipe for a very sterile life. And the Norm Lenhart Political Party will have at most a single member.
What if they don't think you're an idiot? What if they just disagree with you about something?
Actually I live a great life and in fact, it's only gotten better as time passes in almost every way. It got massively better several years ago when I rid myself from two faced hypocrites.
People disagree with me all the time. i don't think I'm some special repository of knowledge that's never wrong about anything. And I'm fully ready to, and have, admitted when I was wrong. But the topic at hand isn't whose baseball team is better or how to best make Spaghetti. We are talking about serious right/wrong/good/evil stuff. And it's not a matter of opinion for you or I. It's a matter of core and very fundamental issues.
Trumps record is out there and has been out there. If Hillary got hit by one of the bullets she dodged over Bosnia or had never been born to begin with, Donald Trump would still be who and what he is. Her evil does not lessen his and vise versa.
In order to vote or support Trump, one cannot pick and choose. This isn't a case of he did something stupid or terrible as a teenager and then got his life straightened out. This is a case of a fully grown man who acts like a very screwed up teenager, that spent his entire life doing and actively funding pretty much the bucket list of people and things conservatism and people of faith abhor.
Again, Hillary's evil/idiocy is NOT RELEVANT TO ANY OF IT outside the fact Trump FUNDED HER. Besides that they are two seperate entities.
Now all of this is known. It is CERTAINLY know to people on political forums and by most of the world outside America. If it is not known, then ignorant people should abstain from voting altogether. But people DO know what he is.
BECAUSE they know what he is they have to make a choice. To empower him or not. Whenthey empower him with their online support, their door to door support, their phone/text support, they are in fact empowering everything he is. They can SAY what they want. But there is no magic spell or operation to separate every person's individual pick and choose desires from Donald Trump. When he goes to DC, he is the same guy that sexually assaults women he thinks is his personal star powered right.
Again, HILLARY has ZERO to do with any of this.
So when they send Donald to DC, they send him knowing he lies. That he sexually assaults. That he has no idea what he's doing economically. that he has no idea about foreign policy. that he has no idea how the military works. That he encourages violence from his minions. That his minions includes white supremacists and overt racists he refuses to disavow.
Again, Hillary has nothing to do with any of that.
So here we are with a completely inept man that thinks women are his personal sexual outlet, that is ignorant of both the constitution and the core principles of religious and press freedom, that has his personal interpretation of gun rights, whose immigration plans shift with popular opinion, not law...
And people that say YUP! I will vote for that man! are not situational ethicists?
Fair enough. they are outright evil.
-
If the NeverTrumpers elect Hillary I am done with politics. Under a president Hillary there is no point in voting or donating to her opposition. She will weaponize the entire federal government against conservatives and there is not a damn thing that can be done to stop her once she becomes president. So yeah, you elect her you deal with her.
If only you had been 'done with politics' before you helped nominate the only person in the known universe that Hillary could defeat. And defeat easily.
So, don't even try to blame the Never Trumpers.
-
Actually I live a great life and in fact, it's only gotten better as time passes in almost every way. It got massively better several years ago when I rid myself from two faced hypocrites.
I'll take your word for it.
I'd just point out that, in all those words you just typed out, you demonstrated no sense of understanding or sympathy.
Again, HILLARY has ZERO to do with any of this.
For most of the people you're calling evil (without any personal knowledge of their particular situations), she has everything to do with it.
That's wrong.
-
If the NeverTrumpers elect Hillary I am done with politics. Under a president Hillary there is no point in voting or donating to her opposition. She will weaponize the entire federal government against conservatives and there is not a damn thing that can be done to stop her once she becomes president. So yeah, you elect her you deal with her.
Most pundits agree that Trump's last chance to win the election lives or dies with the Florida vote.
I'm in Florida.
I'm not voting for Hillary but I'm not voting for Trump either.
Politics will miss you.
-
I'll take your word for it.
I'd just point out that, in all those words you just typed out, you demonstrated no sense of understanding or sympathy.
For most of the people you're calling evil (without any personal knowledge of their particular situations), she has everything to do with it.
That's wrong.
She has NOTHING to do with it. She didn't make Trump what he is. She is not the only option other than trump. No one has a gun to their head. If they do, they put it there and that's their problem.
No. I have ZERO sympathy. None for anyone that refuses to see the reality of a situation and chooses evil intentionally regardless of anything else. I understand the situation as it is. I am not inventing excuses as to why one evil must be empowered so that another evil is not.
-
She has NOTHING to do with it. She didn't make Trump what he is. She is not the only option other than trump. No one has a gun to their head. If they do, they put it there and that's their problem.
No. I have ZERO sympathy. None for anyone that refuses to see the reality of a situation and chooses evil intentionally regardless of anything else. I understand the situation as it is. I am not inventing excuses as to why one evil must be empowered so that another evil is not.
Sigh. If you took a moment to understand, you'd see that Hillary Clinton has a whole lot to do with the choices people are making.
You claim to know it all. Perhaps you do. But not everybody has your knowledge of good and evil. Some people see the problem differently than you do.
And you're calling them all evil.
Which says more about you, than it does about them.
-
Sigh. If you took a moment to understand, you'd see that Hillary Clinton has a whole lot to do with the choices people are making.
You claim to know it all. Perhaps you do. But not everybody has your knowledge of good and evil. Some people see the problem differently than you do.
And you're calling them all evil.
Which says more about you, than it does about them.
Actually if you actually read my post you will see that there is a full paragraph stating clearly that I do not claim to know it all, nor do I believe I am free from error. So I am not sure why you would post that.
Are they empowering evil or not? Thats the only question here. Why isn't an issue. they are or they are not. Which are they doing?
Again, I don't remotely care what it says about me.
-
Actually if you actually read my post you will see that there is a full paragraph stating clearly that I do not claim to know it all, nor do I believe I am free from error. So I am not sure why you would post that.
Because everything else you've written says pretty much the opposite.
Are they empowering evil or not? Thats the only question here. Why isn't an issue. they are or they are not. Which are they doing?
Again, I don't remotely care what it says about me.
You vastly oversimplify the issue, so of course you come up with a simplistic global condemnation.
And you really ought to care what people think about you. For example, this exchange has made me begin to wonder if it's worth the effort of reading your posts. You'll reach nobody if your default setting is "judgmental prig."
-
No you're not, no conservative would ever help elect Hillary Clinton, no, not ever.
we're not supporting Hillary or her friend, supporter and donor.
-
Can you imagine the disgust that a great man like Donald has for those who fail him? They should look into Donald's eyes on their "Trump as George Washington" memes they post or his visage on their Trump commemorative plates and wither under his steely gaze!
Wither!
In SHAME!
The shame of failing Donald.
Trump might even have a book ghost-written about how he was failed, titled "The Losers and I". This after he spends the next year or so praising President Hillary and yukking it up with Bill Clinton on the golf courses.
-
Because everything else you've written says pretty much the opposite.
You vastly oversimplify the issue, so of course you come up with a simplistic global condemnation.
And you really ought to care what people think about you. For example, this exchange has made me begin to wonder if it's worth the effort of reading your posts. You'll reach nobody if your default setting is "judgmental prig."
That would be your opinion. You are completely entitled to it.
I don't oversimplify anything I am getting to the core issue rather dancing around it like many with excuses to find that one special excuse that absolves them of facing up to what they are actually doing.
I honestly don't care if anyone reads my posts, puts me on ignore or anything else. I'm not in this to be famous, popular or even liked. Ill write about what I see, what I know and people can either accept it, engage me on it, or ignore it and me altogether.
I hope they read and consider my points, but I'm not going to alter delivery of them in any way to make them more palatable. If people want to read the words rather than the person behind them, thats great. If people reject them and myself, I'm good with that too.
-
You don't understand how much pressure a female is under in a male dominated career to handle these incidents "gracefully".
@ConstitutionRose
You're assuming I don't understand. I contend that I do. I've seen firsthand the effects on women from being put in bad positions...in fact, long ago, I went to the Board of Directors of my employer's company and worked (successfully) to get the Publisher of my newspaper (my boss at the time) removed from his position because of the abuse of his position toward female staff! Please don't think I'm clueless on this issue.
This is in some ways similar to those who excuse Bill Clinton because Monica gave consent. We can't assume that consent in a power environment is fine.
My point is not that Donald Trump is a paradigm of how to interact with women. I'm not saying he respects women. I'm not saying that women are not put in bad situations by him.
What I'm saying is that with his words, he never admitted to those things. Just because I loathe the creep, I'm not going to claim that his words stated something they didn't just by reading in more than explicitly there.
I am no feminist. I find these easily offended young ladies who whimper over every masculine display embarrassing. Neither should I have to suffer unwelcome touching of my person simply because I am female and the male has a position superior to mine.
I have a great deal of respect for you, and agree that nobody should have to suffer such offenses against their person. Like I said before, I hold that belief strongly enough to put my job on the line, losing several (what I thought were) friendships.
-
I don't oversimplify anything I an getting to the core issue rather dancing around it like many with excuses to find that one special excuse that absolves them of facing up to what they are actually doing.
And that's precisely where you're wrong, both factually and morally.
You are stoutly refusing to allow for other people's points of view, and their rationales for decisions with which you disagree. You have set yourself up as the sole arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil.
I hope they read and consider my points, but I'm not going to alter delivery of them in any way to make them more palatable.
Why should they, when you're unwilling to consider any point of view other than your own? It's like talking to a deaf cat.
Have a nice day.
-
And that's precisely where you're wrong, both factually and morally.
You are stoutly refusing to allow for other people's points of view, and their rationales for decisions with which you disagree. You have set yourself up as the sole arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil.
Why should they, when you're unwilling to consider any point of view other than your own? It's like talking to a deaf cat.
Have a nice day.
And you as well.
-
@Suppressed
There have been times in my life when I've touched a woman intimately. And I don't ever recall asking for permission.
Have you walked up to strange women and grabbed their genitals? Because that's the issue here, no matter how strenuously you try to deflect.
You sound like these SJWs who want a consent form filled out, when in the real world consent is often granted without a form or verbal request.
Yeah, that's right. My crotch is fair game for any dirty old man who wants to walk up to me and touch it. How dare I get the idea that my private areas are just that, right? Damned feminist SJW!
You know what you sound like? Every contemptible, despicable stereotype put forth by women on the left.
If no non-verbal consent was granted, then it was sexual assault. But the only bit of information pro-or-con that we have about consent was that he said that they let him do it. So there's no evidence that he was saying, "I force myself on unconsenting women."
He was bragging that they DO consent!
Then why did Rudy Giuliani, former prosecutor, admit that it was, indeed, sexual assault?
No, I don't assume anything. This is exactly where the difference is. I'm saying we can't assume a specific meaning to what he said, since it's ambiguous. It could have been either.
There's no need to assume anything when his own words are on tape.
On the other hand, you're making the assumption of the worst-case scenario.
I don't have to when I heard what he said on tape.
So it's okay to grab a woman and kiss her without consent, but grabbing the crotch is where the line is drawn? Interesting worldview you have.
Well, first of all, acknowledging that a woman's genitals are not part of the public domain is not a "worldview." It's common decency. Isn't it?
Secondly, I don't know why you would say that's "interesting". Kissing is not sex. And I don't believe most states consider kissing to legally count as sexual assault.
Thirdly, yes, that IS where the line is drawn. Halfway reasonable people understand that. Why don't you?
Yes, intimate areas are required for sexual assault,
If you acknowledge as much, why did you question where the line was drawn?
but that doesn't mean that one can grab a woman off the street and forcibly kiss her (unless it's V-E Day).
Most men wouldn't do it, I expect. But you're trying to deflect again. Kissing is not the issue.
And you left out that he said that he questioned whether Trump had done things.
Of course he said that. How is he. a former prosecutor, going to say, yes, Trump is guilty of those things and I'm going to continue to support him? He had no choice but to admit that the behavior was sexual assault.
But that would ruin your narrative that Giuliani is claiming Trump admitted to sexual assault. Let's remember, that was your original contention...that Trump had admitted to sexual assault.
No, let's remember that you and maybe a couple of lapdogs in Trump's camp are about the only people in the country twisting yourselves into pretzels to portray Trump as innocent. It's generally acknowledged that yes, Trump did those things---because Trump's words were taken at face value. The only way you can try to justify him is to mischaracterize what he said and add in a healthy dose of "what-ifs."
Won't work.
[/b]And I questioned it. He did no such thing. He gave an ambiguous statement that you choose to interpret one way. If there was consent to the touching, it is not sexual abuse (NYS legal term for sexual assault), by statute. (Note, I'm not a lawyer.)
[/quote]
Ambiguous...LOL.
There's no need for interpretation when the words are clear, and Trump's were.
I have to say, I find it really interesting that you're so insistent on defending his actions.
-
@Suppressed
No excuses for sexual predation.
But you're the one who is saying that Donald Trump is admitting to being an abuser. I say he admits no such thing.
@Suppressed
You, Sean Hannity, and Jerry Falwell, Jr.
Here's the tenth woman to come forward against Trump. He walked up to her, grabbed her arm and her breast, and when she recoiled, said, "Don't you know who I am?"
Clearly just another SJW who doesn't understand that he never did those things, or something...
https://twitter.com/ReutersLive/status/789130431622881280 (https://twitter.com/ReutersLive/status/789130431622881280)
-
@Suppressed
Have you walked up to strange women and grabbed their genitals? Because that's the issue here, no matter how strenuously you try to deflect.
etc...
We must also consider that Trump said "I moved on her like a bitch". A bitch is generally a term for female breeding animals. So basically Trump is implying that he approached these women with his tail raised and his vagina presented.
Takes all kinds I guess ;)
-
BRAVA @CatherineofAragon !!
And THANK you!!
-
We must also consider that Trump said "I moved on her like a bitch". A bitch is generally a term for female breeding animals. So basically Trump is implying that he approached these women with his tail raised and his vagina presented.
Takes all kinds I guess ;)
@Norm Lenhart
Lol, what was that? I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed it. Someone should let Trump know what that means. And then vacate the vicinity before his head explodes.
-
BRAVA @CatherineofAragon !!
And THANK you!!
@musiclady
2016....the year which found conservative women forced to stand up for their honor to conservative men. **nononono*
-
"Grabbing genitals".
In Summer of 2015 who would have thought this would be the hot-topic issue of the 2016 election?
-
@Norm Lenhart
Lol, what was that? I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed it. Someone should let Trump know what that means. And then vacate the vicinity before his head explodes.
In all my years pripr to marriage, I used my fair share of terms but "Moved on her like a bitch" I can't even begin to imagine a dude saying. I get the "Moved on" thing, corny as it is because he's a Studio 54/70s era guy. they wore platforms (and not pink strappy ones either.) But 'like a bitch'?
To use the term all the cool kids say lately...I can't EVEN....
-
@musiclady
2016....the year which found conservative women forced to stand up for their honor to conservative men. **nononono*
You arent standing up to 'conservative' men. I question the 'men' part as well. Liberal males most likely.
-
"Grabbing genitals".
In Summer of 2015 who would have thought this would be the hot-topic issue of the 2016 election?
Probably that guy in your avatar had an inkling, but nobody else, lol.
-
In all my years pripr to marriage, I used my fair share of terms but "Moved on her like a bitch" I can't even begin to imagine a dude saying. I get the "Moved on" thing, corny as it is because he's a Studio 54/70s era guy. they wore platforms (and not pink strappy ones either.) But 'like a bitch'?
To use the term all the cool kids say lately...I can't EVEN....
He probably thought it sounded all cool and bad, lol.
-
Probably that guy in your avatar had an inkling, but nobody else, lol.
That guy probably would have done better against Hillary than Trump. :P
-
"Grabbing genitals".
In Summer of 2015 who would have thought this would be the hot-topic issue of the 2016 election?
Something related to that was part of the hot topic issues around Bill Clinton's impeachment, too. (OK, so he was
impeached for the crimes he committed trying to cover up his White House flings and the Republican Senate
caved on trying and convicting him, but let's not get technical.) And Droopy-Drawers's supporters tried to make
that much ado about nothing but his junk, too.
-
Anyone still supporting Trump owes Bill Clinton a huge apology.
-
"Grabbing genitals".
In Summer of 2015 who would have thought this would be the hot-topic issue of the 2016 election?
Well, we did know there would be a Clinton in the race.
-
Here's the tenth woman to come forward against Trump. He walked up to her, grabbed her arm and her breast, and when she recoiled, said, "Don't you know who I am?
@CatherineofAragon
Deflection yet again.
Where did he admit he grabbed her breast?
Remember, that's the statement of yours that I'm questioning, regardless of how many times you try to change the topic and pretend I'm arguing something else.
Please provide the statement where he admits he grabbed her breast without consent, if you think that's relevant.
The creep has admitted nothing.
-
Anyone still supporting Trump owes Bill Clinton a huge apology.
Oh no! they will invent all new excuses as to why it's different just so they can do what they have decided to no matter what. They would have to admit they were wrong and we clearly see they'd sooner die than do that.
-
@musiclady
2016....the year which found conservative women forced to stand up for their honor to conservative men. **nononono*
Sean Hannity and Tammy Wynette sure sound a lot alike these days.
-
400 posts of cheap moralizing hasn't done anything to help protect the constitution, the rights of the unborn, religious freedom, or the borders. So much for conservatism.
-
400 posts of cheap moralizing hasn't done anything to help protect the constitution, the rights of the unborn, religious freedom, or the borders. So much for conservatism.
Better than actively destroying it by promoting a liberal candidate like you did.
-
400 posts of cheap moralizing hasn't done anything to help protect the constitution, the rights of the unborn, religious freedom, or the borders. So much for conservatism.
I should add since it is destroyed, you should shake the dust from your shoes and move on to a better philosophy. Leave us wretches to suffer in our ashes. We will go one better for your absence.
-
I've done the most powerful thing I can.
I voted.
-
No you're not, no conservative would ever help elect Hillary Clinton, no, not ever.
While your statement is unfounded (not a soul here is 'helping elect Hillary Clinton'), more importantly, whether Clinton or not, the statement has nothing to do with the definition of Conservatism or Conservatives.
Conservatives stand upon certain and definable principles. Conservatives vote for those who advance those principles. That they will not vote for your boy, who embodies not a single ONE of those principles, is not only predictable, but was predicted from the very start of things. We TOLD you so. You were warned. Continuously and at volume.
Again, give Conservatives someone to vote *FOR*, and you will win.
Yours is nothing but a modified claim toward the lesser evil argument, and is of no merit.
-
I've done the most powerful thing I can.
I voted.
I know you didn't mean it this way, but, damn, that's a sad statement! That's all we've got at this point, and to misquote Mark Twain: "If voting worked, they wouldn't let us do it."
-
While your statement is unfounded (not a soul here is 'helping elect Hillary Clinton'), more importantly, whether Clinton or not, the statement has nothing to do with the definition of Conservatism or Conservatives.
Conservatives stand upon certain and definable principles. Conservatives vote for those who advance those principles. That they will not vote for your boy, who embodies not a single ONE of those principles, is not only predictable, but was predicted from the very start of things. We TOLD you so. You were warned. Continuously and at volume.
Again, give Conservatives someone to vote *FOR*, and you will win.
Yours is nothing but a modified claim toward the lesser evil argument, and is of no merit.
Oh they absolutely were. We made no secret of it. What convinces me (one of many things these are liberals is that after Romney, they were well aware it was not an idle threat. But consider...
* After Romney, the GOP lost a lot of members. But they still did not listen and pushed for the very people that gave Obama the store. Mitch, Bhoner etc. They lost more members and funding.
* Bhoner was run out of office on a rail. Their response was to ignore the very reasons Bhoner was rejected and they replaced him with Ryan. Who then did his best to help Mitch give Obama the rest of the land around the store. They lost even MORE members and funding.
* Then they torpedoed Cruz before the election began and hamstrung him in the primary. They lost yet more funding.
* Then they ran a guy to the left of Mitt Romney.
And they think we will play along? Let them burn.
-
That guy probably would have done better against Hillary than Trump. :P
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
I'd vote for him.
-
Sean Hannity and Tammy Wynette sure sound a lot alike these days.
@Idaho_Cowboy
We were watching the debate last night, and out of the blue an image of Hannity popped into my mind. He was sitting on a couch, but with really short toddler-sized legs, and he was bouncing up and down and pointing at the TV and crowing, "There's my daddy!"
-
400 posts of cheap moralizing hasn't done anything to help protect the constitution, the rights of the unborn, religious freedom, or the borders. So much for conservatism.
@Axel
An amoral big-government statist with a history of sexual assault won't do it, either.
-
Oh they absolutely were. We made no secret of it. What convinces me (one of many things these are liberals is that after Romney, they were well aware it was not an idle threat. But consider...
Oh, I very much agree. It goes back further than that (McAin't was a sworn enemy of Conservatives out of his own mouth), but you are absolutely right.
There was a time that, after a wholesale loss, Republican leadership would step down. Voluntarily in most cases. That hasn't happened across the last three losses (to include this one).
There will be no change in direction until those with a death-grip on the levers of power are forcibly removed from their positions. I had high hopes when Bhoner was forced out... but here we are again, sommore.
And they think we will play along? Let them burn.
Indeed.
-
With a Hillary presidency it's not going to matter if they are here illegally or legally and she will certainly 'revisit' our rights under the second amendment.
Let her. She can't take the Right away, and 80,000,000 gun owners with enough firearms to put one in the hands of every man, woman, and child in the USA aren't just going to meekly hand them over to her or anyone else.
-
@ConstitutionRose
I agree with everything you've said here.
I'm not a feminist, either. I view a whistle or a compliment from a man as just that---a compliment. I don't have anything in common with liberal women who exude man hatred and discomfort with their own femininity.
I've been followeed into rooms and backed up against the wall by a man who wanted to force himself on me. I took care of it myself; I outlined to him what would happen to his anatomy if he didn't leave me alone. There were no problems afterward. IMO, the type of man who does this not only wants sex, but enjoys the intimidation and the domination of females.
Because I'm no feminist, and because I've always liked men and defended them, I never expected to find myself having to deal with conservative men who bend over backward to excuse a sexual predator. This isn't gender studies here and we're not talking about some "women's issue." It comes down to basic decency. I will be damned before I give any quarter to men (or women) who expect me to be tolerant of someone who views me as a piece of meat to be groped and felt up.
Basic advice to the fellow working with women: Don't hand her no lines and keep your hands to yourself...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdpAop7gp0w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdpAop7gp0w)
-
@Idaho_Cowboy
We were watching the debate last night, and out of the blue an image of Hannity popped into my mind. He was sitting on a couch, but with really short toddler-sized legs, and he was bouncing up and down and pointing at the TV and crowing, "There's my daddy!"
That would make Sean and Milo brothers.
-
I learned my lesson about this in a situation that was similar to this one, in a lot of ways. One thing it taught me, is that it's necessary to be more forgiving than you are apparently willing to do.
People support Trump for a lot of different reasons, a big one being a justified opposition to Hillary Clinton.
When it comes to people's motivations, it's not really a question of "abandoning conservative principle" -- not on a conscious level, at any rate. To many, it's a matter of trying to maintain what one believes to be the correct position in the face of two intolerable choices.
I'm sorry, Norm, but on this matter you're coming across like a Pharisee.
Imagine the state of today's church if Jesus would only accept those disciples who had no sin.... it wouldn't exist.
And if you're only going to accept as political allies those who are without sin (as you define it), you're going to have a convention with one delegate. Or zero, if you're honest with yourself.
Just checking, but you seemed to gloss over a specific characteristic of those disciples, there. Repentance. A change in their worldview, if you will, being genuinely sorry for having sinned and showing the intent and determination to avoid such in the future.
Now, it is impossible for one person to know another's heart, all we have to go on is their actions subsequent to their repentance.
The brutality and superficiality of the attacks on Heidi Cruz and Carly Fiorina based on appearance sure seemed to denote someone who was still objectifying women to the extent his attacks were appearance based. I'm just not seeing any change in fundamental instinctive behaviour there, and thus have little reason to believe it has occurred elsewhere, either. YMMV
-
Isn't anyone that stands on principle and who does whats right in the face of whats wrong in a better position than someone that does whats wrong in the face of whats right? Isn't that what we are supposed to do as people? Strive to morality and not make excuses why we can't?
The problem is that people are so afraid to do whats right they will excuse whats wrong lest they be seen as arrogant, purist, holier than thou or whatever. I'm not. I don't care what anyone thinks of me. I only care about the truth of the matter. Nor is forgiveness mine to give in the first place. I don't see why anyone that thinks me an idiot cares whether I forgive them or not. So thats not really even an issue.
What it boils down to, is that in the end I am responsible and accountable for my actions to a higher judge, to Almighty God. It isn't because Jimmy so and so did it too I will stand before Him, or because the other option sucked that I stand there, it will be because of what I have done or not done, it's all on me.
When one takes that perspective, that four years of Hillary might suck, but this is fleeting compared to actively voting for an unknown but decidedly unacceptable alternative in preference, or voting for someone who is likely not to prevail in this contest and answering for that vote someday, I'll take the latter option in good faith that I will have cast my ballot for the person whom I think would be best for the Republic and who best reflects my moral values in their political stances and even private life.
-
And that's precisely where you're wrong, both factually and morally.
You are stoutly refusing to allow for other people's points of view, and their rationales for decisions with which you disagree. You have set yourself up as the sole arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil.
Pardon me for weighing in, but rationale is just a way of excusing something that might otherwise be unacceptable. I watched a friend rationalize that a particular variety of coffee was better (because it was much cheaper). It wasn't. I have seen people justify a multitude of wrongs by rationalizing that 'they started it'. And so forth.
If someone has to use Hillary as an excuse to vote for Trump, they have rationalized it.
That doesn't make Trump right or good, it only makes him acceptable because he isn't seen as being as bad.
Unfortunately, Republicans have been voting for the 'not as bad as the other guy' guy for so long, they have forgotten what it is like to vote for someone who is good.
Remember voting for Ronald Reagan the second time? Easy choice, not fraught with deep, visceral, and moral conflict. Since then, always with misgivings, always saying 'but he isn't as bad as...', or 'the lesser of two evils', or 'don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good' when the 'good' was defined simply as not being as bad as the other bad.
Yes, have the courage to be fundamentally honest enough to say it is a contest of bad versus a perceived 'more bad', and if you vote for either you will, frankly, vote for bad.
Because 'good' is really defined by a fixed set of criteria, not graded on a curve.
The alternative is that rationalization creeps in, the excuses proliferate, situation ethics takes over and 'the less bad' is relabeled as 'good', and fear wins. Or not.
If there is an absolutely good alternative, why vote for either bad? It just empowers bad to do so.
-
Just checking, but you seemed to gloss over a specific characteristic of those disciples, there. Repentance. A change in their worldview, if you will, being genuinely sorry for having sinned and showing the intent and determination to avoid such in the future.
Now, it is impossible for one person to know another's heart, all we have to go on is their actions subsequent to their repentance.
The brutality and superficiality of the attacks on Heidi Cruz and Carly Fiorina based on appearance sure seemed to denote someone who was still objectifying women to the extent his attacks were appearance based. I'm just not seeing any change in fundamental instinctive behaviour there, and thus have little reason to believe it has occurred elsewhere, either. YMMV
I think we agree about Trump, who is morally repugnant, and for whom I'm not voting.
Rather, I was talking to Norm about his wholesale condemnation of anybody who will vote for Trump for whatever reason. I think many of those people view Trump very much as we do, but also see him as the least intolerable of two intolerable options. I think they're wrong, but I don't consider them evil or stupid.
-
Pardon me for weighing in, but rationale is just a way of excusing something that might otherwise be unacceptable. I watched a friend rationalize that a particular variety of coffee was better (because it was much cheaper). It wasn't. I have seen people justify a multitude of wrongs by rationalizing that 'they started it'. And so forth.
Are such people always and irredeemably evil?
It's just stupid to dismiss all Trump voters -- and all Hillary voters, too, for that matter -- as evil. Stupid and Pharisaical.
Most people are trapped in a two-party mindset, and they're just trying to do the right thing in a situation where it's not possible to do so. By and large they're no more evil than you or me, and many less so, even if they do vote for Trump, or Hillary.
-
In all my years pripr to marriage, I used my fair share of terms but "Moved on her like a bitch" I can't even begin to imagine a dude saying. I get the "Moved on" thing, corny as it is because he's a Studio 54/70s era guy. they wore platforms (and not pink strappy ones either.) But 'like a bitch'?
To use the term all the cool kids say lately...I can't EVEN....
My take on that was that he was implying she was a 'bitch' as opposed to a lady. Some of the women in Trump's social circles would not tolerate such behaviour, so apparently he had relegated her to a lower status undeserving of normal social decency and to be used as he saw fit.
I have seen similar in my bad old biker tramp days where there were 'old ladys' (someone's wife/girlfriend) to be treated with respect (or risk the ire of the entire club) and 'bitches' sometimes treated as camp followers (who willingly placed themselves in that position in hopes of moving up to 'old lady' status). It was a measure of the club for me how the latter group were treated, and often it was at least with basic respect.
-
@Suppressed
Have you walked up to strange women and grabbed their genitals? Because that's the issue here, no matter how strenuously you try to deflect.
Yeah, that's right. My crotch is fair game for any dirty old man who wants to walk up to me and touch it. How dare I get the idea that my private areas are just that, right? Damned feminist SJW!
You know what you sound like? Every contemptible, despicable stereotype put forth by women on the left.
I
Then why did Rudy Giuliani, former prosecutor, admit that it was, indeed, sexual assault?
There's no need to assume anything when his own words are on tape.
I don't have to when I heard what he said on tape.
Well, first of all, acknowledging that a woman's genitals are not part of the public domain is not a "worldview." It's common decency. Isn't it?
Secondly, I don't know why you would say that's "interesting". Kissing is not sex. And I don't believe most states consider kissing to legally count as sexual assault.
Thirdly, yes, that IS where the line is drawn. Halfway reasonable people understand that. Why don't you?
If you acknowledge as much, why did you question where the line was drawn?
Most men wouldn't do it, I expect. But you're trying to deflect again. Kissing is not the issue.
Of course he said that. How is he. a former prosecutor, going to say, yes, Trump is guilty of those things and I'm going to continue to support him? He had no choice but to admit that the behavior was sexual assault.
No, let's remember that you and maybe a couple of lapdogs in Trump's camp are about the only people in the country twisting yourselves into pretzels to portray Trump as innocent. It's generally acknowledged that yes, Trump did those things---because Trump's words were taken at face value. The only way you can try to justify him is to mischaracterize what he said and add in a healthy dose of "what-ifs."
Won't work.
Ambiguous...LOL.
There's no need for interpretation when the words are clear, and Trump's were.
I have to say, I find it really interesting that you're so insistent on defending his actions.
@CatherineofAragon Thank you for saying all of this. I have given up, kudos to you for you brain not exploding having to explain all of that. It is beyond ridiculous that Trump's kind of behavior is explained away. I know people have a hard time admitting the truth to themselves at times, but holy cow, this is something else. Wouldn't it just be so much easier for someone to say they're voting for the guy because he's not Hillary and just move on and not try to come up with crazy explanations?
-
Are such people always and irredeemably evil?
It's just stupid to dismiss all Trump voters -- and all Hillary voters, too, for that matter -- as evil. Stupid and Pharisaical.
Most people are trapped in a two-party mindset, and they're just trying to do the right thing in a situation where it's not possible to do so. By and large they're no more evil than you or me, and many less so, even if they do vote for Trump, or Hillary.
No, I'm not dismissing them as evil, we're all sinners. How would you characterize someone who has been given guidance repeatedly who still goes back to the same problem?
Proverbs 26:11? As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Decent people do evil things all the time, out of ignorance, not recognizing the results of their actions.
When people do things because they are misled or deceived does that make them evil?
Now we're getting in a little deeper, because people who are misled or deceived at some time usually realize what they are doing is wrong, and decide to either continue or stop.
I would postulate that by now, the wrong has been pointed out to all who will listen.
There are those who honestly believe there is nothing wrong with what they support,
That is getting pretty close to evil in my book, but I am not the one to judge them, save to avoid such people in my personal and other dealings.
Those who refuse to be swayed, who refuse to listen are either giving complete approval for whatever reason (possibly out of the anger that snared them), or cannot handle the idea that they chose poorly and remain in denial. A sad failure of judgement followed by moral cowardice. Pitiable, but likely not evil, people. Still, no one to run the river with.
Others continue in the rationalization that now they have no choice but to do one wrong in hopes of preventing another and greater wrong, but to do wrong nonetheless, and to take a chance on that gradation. If they are comfortable with that, there is evil in the rationale that led them there.
Thinking they are making the best of a bad situation, admitting the flaws which may be inherent in that choice, but still backing evil. Those who fear a greater evil from other quarters and think this is the best option, are trapped by a false dichotomy they only perpetuate by their fear. Evil, no, only afraid.
There is no freedom there, only the chains of hate or fear, binding even ordinarily good people to committing themselves to do something they know deeply to be wrong, but feeling they have no choice.
To have a better option, they need to do the very thing they fear most: to leave the plantation, to shed those chains of fear and vote their conscience. The truth shall set you free.
If there is to be salvation of the Conservative movement, it's people must rally around a set of principles, not a person. Those principles will remain steadfast, people do not, and no one will likely match them 100% for their entire life, but would show a progression in principle toward that ideal. A suitable candidate would come close. Character counts, and their actions will reflect that character.
Consider we are choosing a representative of all that is America, someone to represent our nation to the world. In the past we have stood for Liberty, we need to practice it. In the past we have stood for strength, militarily, to be wielded against those who threaten our liberty.
In the past we have stood for fairness, we need to show it. In the past we have proven generous and merciful to our vanquished enemies, we should continue.
That is no mandate to impose our way of life on the unwilling, and our actions should grant them the right to live as they choose so long as they don't seek to impose that on others who are unwilling. We are the 'golden rule' embodied in a nation, and letting the most vile aspects of our culture percolate to the top and run the show is not the formula for continuing to be the America that has fought for Truth and Justice in the World.
We're not behaving like we were raised, as a nation to behave, and that leads to misery and unhappiness, a poverty of our national soul as well as our treasuries.
Those Founding principles, with some amendments were there, woven into the very fabric of America, along with a form of government designed to make it more difficult for those with evil or selfish intent to alter or destroy, to limit the abuse of power.
Every vote for even a lesser evil takes us away from our formative selves as individuals and a nation.
-
Oceander wrote:
"It's not a matter of @Luis Gonzalez trying to censor history, it's about trying to keep some slight modicum of peace here."
When someone says "it isn't about censorship"...
....it's about censorship.
-
No, I'm not dismissing them as evil, we're all sinners. How would you characterize someone who has been given guidance repeatedly who still goes back to the same problem?
.
.
.
Every vote for even a lesser evil takes us away from our formative selves as individuals and a nation.
A good post.
Still, one way to characterize those people is .... that they see things differently. No more or less than that. What's more, I have a great deal of sympathy with the position that a President Hillary is not just worse, but far worse, than would be the case under Trump. I don't believe that to be the case, but I can see how many people could, and act accordingly.
Not just that, but even if we're entirely right and they're entirely wrong, those are the same people we will need to work with, together, to cobble together something worthwhile from the rubble of the Republican Party. And the beauty of it is, they're mostly good people who want to do the right thing.
The worst possible thing to do, is what "conservatives" (I use the term pejoratively) always seem to do: excommunicate people for believing differently.
-
A good post.
Still, one way to characterize those people is .... that they see things differently. No more or less than that. What's more, I have a great deal of sympathy with the position that a President Hillary is not just worse, but far worse, than would be the case under Trump. I don't believe that to be the case, but I can see how many people could, and act accordingly.
Not just that, but even if we're entirely right and they're entirely wrong, those are the same people we will need to work with, together, to cobble together something worthwhile from the rubble of the Republican Party. And the beauty of it is, they're mostly good people who want to do the right thing.
The worst possible thing to do, is what "conservatives" (I use the term pejoratively) always seem to do: excommunicate people for believing differently.
I think we are on the right track. Part of the problem is that the word "Conservative" has been taken to be the same thing as "Republican". For a while, Republicans were fairly conservative, but they don't get to steal the word and take it to the left with the Party. **nononono*
Conservatism is an ideology, not a political party. If that can't be sorted out, those of us who are part and parcel tied to that ideology need to find a new name for it and ourselves, and let the Republicans finish the hydraulic tailspin into political oblivion.
We often agree on the problems we want to solve, sometimes we disagree on what is the best way to go about that, and one thing is certain, there have been bitter disagreements of late as to who is the best person to lead those changes. That will likely cost the Republican Party what should have been an easy election. That damage is done.
What will rise from those ashes? I for one have been a proponent of taking the reins of an existing Party closely aligned with the political views we hold, which has a solution to the problems, and going full tilt to bump the elephant from the dais. The Democrats came close to schism this year as well, with Bernie's Socialists putting up one of the toughest primary fights seen in a while.
I have made no secret of the Party I favor, and only obscurity allows certain political elements to malign it and characterize it as something it isn't. If you read their competitors' stuff about it, it's anything from holy roller to troofer to really stuff for late Friday night teevee.
Nope. The platform is based on the US Constitution, which with the widespread ignorance in the Republic may well seem really out there, because when you read it and realize that many entrenched Federal Agencies and Programs have absolutely no Constitutional Authority to exist, that those powers should by rights be the purview of the several states, and that the Federal Government is doing things which only by the most elastic interpretations of the letter of the law are legal, interpretations far beyond anything ever intended by the Founders.
I'm all for throwing in there, and likely that would be welcome as long as no one tried to change too much. Frankly, there isn't much I'd change. I wish I could say that about the Republicans, but I can't. that party is pretty well rusted out for a frame-off restoration, and the current occupants would be eminently hostile to that sort of tinkering with their fiefdom.
We know in the future to have any political voice we are going to have to have numbers, too.
Crying out in the wilderness is fine exercise, but not many hear what you have to say.
They don't hear it with their fingers in their ears running around shouting 'la' repeatedly, either.
But, deep down, we're suffering from brand confusion. Republican got to the point where anyone who wanted could hop on board and be one, without any onus to hold or express a set of beliefs. With "Conservatism" identified (incorrectly) as "Republican, the two got muddled.
Task number one: Let's define "conservatism". There is an essential set of fundamental values we're going to want to see there. Some are moral ("family values"), many are simply following the Constitution.
Let's make a list of the agencies we'd eliminate/downsize/combine and reorganize all with reduced scope and capacity in order to move the federal Government back within Constitutional constraints, including the powers to be returned to the several states.
Let's also make a list of priorities, things the Federal Government is Constitutionally tasked with, the duties thereof, and what changes would need to be made to make that happen.
Let's also make another list of the things the Federal Government is doing that it just does not have the Constitutional authority to do. Programs and Departments which simply have no business being there. Some will be sacred cows, but let's put them down anyway.
Let's cut the budget (yes, a budget!) by 10% without cutting into the ability of the Federal Government to carry out its duly Constitutionally appointed tasks. Efficiency, shopping around, streamlining procurement processes while keeping them accountable all can be done. Something as simple as packaging items in the lowest common denominator of what is actually needed to perform a task would save on needless expense and waste.
Let's list the regulations we'd alter, freeze, eliminate in favor of State regulations in general, and then work on specifics. I'm sure everyone has some.
Find out who we send money to, and other foreign aid, and decide where we might want to shorten the list and reduce the amount and where increasing it might prove beneficial if done correctly. Much of that aid is done as food, let's make that part of a trade deal so the incentive to develop a trade of food for other commodities or products can be done, hopefully building both economies to our mutual benefit. Lets find a way to balance trade that will bring prosperity to all parties and encourage the growth of domestic industries.
Lets figure out how to re-balance the balance of power, not only within the Federal Government and Constitutional Constraints, but also between Federal, State, and Local Government. Let's reduce mandates to suggestions where we can, and none of the former without the funding to comply--if that funding and mandate is Constitutional.
Let's find a way to raise revenue we can agree with and levels we can live with, while balancing the budget and paying down the debt.
Let's figure out an equitable way to reduce federal land ownership in the West and return that land to productivity, not just to benefit those states, but the entire country.
Lets straighten out the mess Obamacare has made and do away with it. Instead of exchanges and subsidies, let's put medicaid on a sliding scale to pay for actual care only and let the insurance companies come up with supplemental programs which fill the gap, and do away with penalties. As people prosper, they pick up more of their health insurance/care costs. The poor are still covered, and the transition becomes do-able rather than a fiscal cliff to climb.
Let's keep a strong and innovative military, especially navy and air force, and take back the lead in space exploration, whether private, public, or a combination of efforts.
Let's dispense with the lunacy surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming and associated solutions to problems we not only cannot fix, but have not caused. Let's quit funding so much research that is not directly related to the Constitutional duties of the Government. Let industry or private funding take up the slack as people decide what research should be done and vote with their dollars.
Let's reclaim our sovereignty from international agencies which seek to subvert it and become as much as any nation the masters of our own destiny.
Let's push softly for a return to a moral and just America, If you would not do it in front of your Mom, chances are it shouldn't be on TV except in the most restricted venues. Let's become the sort of people again who can put a broadcast show on prime time without a 'bleep' every few seconds. If we are going to be cultural leaders, let's be unashamed of what we produce, and a culture worth emulating.
There is a lot I'd like to see, and last but not least, the Congress can remand the decisions about abortion law to the States from any Supreme Court jurisdiction, and equally, the decisions about whether or not to allow prayer in schools to the individual school districts or even schools.
That isn't saying anyone would be required to worship, but that the option would be open for those who wish to do so in states where the legislatures saw fit to make that option available.
That is just a rant, but also a start to get juices flowing and open the discussion. If we want to save this Republic it is up to all of us, not the actions of any one person, to make it happen. If we sit around and wait to be saved, the Republic will not survive.
-
Poll for those interested, as a result of the conversation between @Norm Lenhart and @r9etb
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=230720.0
-
That is just a rant, but also a start to get juices flowing and open the discussion. If we want to save this Republic it is up to all of us, not the actions of any one person, to make it happen. If we sit around and wait to be saved, the Republic will not survive.
@Smokin Joe
Excellent post.
I hope this discussion takes off; it's exactly what we need, in order to know where we're going in the future.
I suggest it should get its own thread.
Thank you.
-
That is just a rant, but also a start to get juices flowing and open the discussion. If we want to save this Republic it is up to all of us, not the actions of any one person, to make it happen. If we sit around and wait to be saved, the Republic will not survive.
A very excellent one.
First thing is, as you say this: "Task number one: Let's define "conservatism". There is an essential set of fundamental values we're going to want to see there. Some are moral ("family values"), many are simply following the Constitution."
And that's the most important thing. People aren't conservative because of policies, but because of we hold certain things to be most important. The policies should reflect our values: they cannot stand alone.
Values such as:
Families are the basis of society and we should do everything we can to ensure that families can properly raise their kids.
Honesty is an essential part of a healthy society. Pretense is not a basis for policy.
People have duties and responsibilities. It is proper to respect those who do their duty, and proper to disdain those who shirk it.
Pay your own way, as best you can.
Manners matter: don't be an a$$hole.
People have a right to speak.
Things like that.
-
Most pundits agree that Trump's last chance to win the election lives or dies with the Florida vote.
I'm in Florida.
I'm not voting for Hillary but I'm not voting for Trump either.
Politics will miss you.
Hillary appreciates your support (and Bill does too, more interns)
-
She has NOTHING to do with it. She didn't make Trump what he is. She is not the only option other than trump. No one has a gun to their head. If they do, they put it there and that's their problem.
No. I have ZERO sympathy. None for anyone that refuses to see the reality of a situation and chooses evil intentionally regardless of anything else. I understand the situation as it is. I am not inventing excuses as to why one evil must be empowered so that another evil is not.
(https://riograndeguardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/160627-don_quijote-de_la_mancha-680x365.jpg)
-
While your statement is unfounded (not a soul here is 'helping elect Hillary Clinton'), more importantly, whether Clinton or not, the statement has nothing to do with the definition of Conservatism or Conservatives.
Conservatives stand upon certain and definable principles. Conservatives vote for those who advance those principles. That they will not vote for your boy, who embodies not a single ONE of those principles, is not only predictable, but was predicted from the very start of things. We TOLD you so. You were warned. Continuously and at volume.
Again, give Conservatives someone to vote *FOR*, and you will win.
Yours is nothing but a modified claim toward the lesser evil argument, and is of no merit.
Enjoy Madame President
-
Let her. She can't take the Right away, and 80,000,000 gun owners with enough firearms to put one in the hands of every man, woman, and child in the USA aren't just going to meekly hand them over to her or anyone else.
@Smokin Joe
You wouldn't stand a chance against a modern Army with modern weapons. There is zero doubt in my mind that the UN would instantly grant authority to say the Chinese military or the Russian military to assist Hillary in taking the guns away.
All for he children you know.
Nope the 2cd is gone once Hillary takes office and packs the courts with Marxist judges. And you can forget about ever over turning Rode v Wade or keeping your freedom of religion.
Every conservative principle y'all claim to have is finished with Hillary as president. Gone forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSuFj1Jii4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSuFj1Jii4)
-
@Smokin Joe
You wouldn't stand a chance against a modern Army with modern weapons. There is zero doubt in my mind that the UN would instantly grant authority to say the Chinese military or the Russian military to assist Hillary in taking the guns away.
All for he children you know.
Nope the 2cd is gone once Hillary takes office and packs the courts with Marxist judges. And you can forget about ever over turning Rode v Wade or keeping your freedom of religion.
Every conservative principle y'all claim to have is finished with Hillary as president. Gone forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSuFj1Jii4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSuFj1Jii4)
You sure seem fond of using Russian imagery...why is that?
Oh and Roe v Wade...isn't going to get overturned no matter who is in office unfortunately. That's just the facts of life.
The courts are already packed with Marxist Judges thanks to the feckless GOP leadership in Congress right now.
Now sure what pathetic point you were trying to make...but as usual you failed miserably.
-
Now sure what pathetic point you were trying to make...but as usual you failed miserably.
It's the usual "the end of the world is nigh unless you vote for Trump" sort of twaddle.
He's offering to share his lunch with us. It's a sh*t sandwich, however, and he gets first pick.
-
I think we are on the right track. Part of the problem is that the word "Conservative" has been taken to be the same thing as "Republican". For a while, Republicans were fairly conservative, but they don't get to steal the word and take it to the left with the Party. **nononono*
Conservatism is an ideology, not a political party. If that can't be sorted out, those of us who are part and parcel tied to that ideology need to find a new name for it and ourselves, and let the Republicans finish the hydraulic tailspin into political oblivion.
Joe, overall, I completely agree. And when I say this I mean in no way to minimize the considerable time and thought you have given this.
All we have to do is do what Reagan told us. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. It's already all there. We just have to run with it.
-
(https://riograndeguardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/160627-don_quijote-de_la_mancha-680x365.jpg)
You have not atoned. Donald's disappointment in you grows. You failed to bring us to heel. You were disloyal and are now interfering with his vision. You re the enemy of Donald.
-
All we have to do is do what Reagan told us. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. It's already all there. We just have to run with it.
Conservatives have been aping Reagan for 30 years now. It doesn't work anymore, nor has worked well up to now. We need new ideas.
-
Conservatives have been aping Reagan for 30 years now. It doesn't work anymore, nor has worked well up to now. We need new ideas.
No they have not. Republicans have been cherrypicking Reagan, psuedocons have been mouthing Reagan. Very few actually followed his direction.
No matter how you parse it, Truth is either truth eternally or is was a lie to begin with. This is totally binary. Truth is ny definition 'The reality' of how something is. Not someone's interp that chan change.
What you are saying is that Reagan was never right. And thats complete bullshit. If he was right, then he was right. The principles have not changed. People have. Thus if the principle/truth is in fact the truth, we can either follow the people's fantasy, which we did and what created this mess, or we can recognize the truth/principle as the reality and move ahead with it.
-
Conservatives have been aping Reagan for 30 years now. It doesn't work anymore, nor has worked well up to now. We need new ideas.
Even understanding the old ideas would be a great improvement.
-
No they have not. Republicans have been cherrypicking Reagan, psuedocons have been mouthing Reagan. Very few actually followed his direction.
You believe what you want to believe, but during the debates I saw a bunch of the same idea: hyper aggressive foreign policy paired with platitudes about "less government". Carly Fiorina sounded like she would nuke russia the day she took office.
No wonder they don't resonate.
-
You believe what you want to believe, but during the debates I saw a bunch of the same idea: hyper aggressive foreign policy paired with platitudes about "less government". Carly Fiorina sounded like she would nuke russia the day she took office.
No wonder they don't resonate.
Well, that's an interesting point of view. Not sure where you'd have to stand to see things that way though.
-
Even understanding the old ideas would be a great improvement.
Remember the conversation yesterday? How do you suppose we understand the old ideas and advance them when people apply situational ethics every time they get scared? If people WANTED them, they would not make excuse after excuse to blow them off and do anything BUT them.
Thats why you cannot simply get along in one big kumbaya hugfest. The old ideas are about standing on a core set of principles, first and foremost. If you cannot trust your group to do that, you have NOTHING from square one.
-
You believe what you want to believe, but during the debates I saw a bunch of the same idea: hyper aggressive foreign policy paired with platitudes about "less government". Carly Fiorina sounded like she would nuke russia the day she took office.
No wonder they don't resonate.
It's not a matter of belief. It's demonstrated Reality. There is exactly one giy since Reagan that embodied his ideal. Cruz. Then he sold out and his support collapsed with it.
His support came from the FACT that he embodied Reaganism. One guy in 30 years. Tell me again how it's been tried so often.
-
It's not a matter of belief. It's demonstrated Reality. There is exactly one giy since Reagan that embodied his ideal. Cruz. Then he sold out and his support collapsed with it.
His support came from the FACT that he embodied Reaganism. One guy in 30 years. Tell me again how it's been tried so often.
Cruz didn't sell out. The GOP decided they didn't want him and apparently did want Trump instead.
-
It's not a matter of belief. It's demonstrated Reality. There is exactly one giy since Reagan that embodied his ideal. Cruz. Then he sold out and his support collapsed with it.
His support came from the FACT that he embodied Reaganism. One guy in 30 years. Tell me again how it's been tried so often.
You still have this ridiculous Limbaugh belief that if we just nominated the immaculate conservative then we could just waltz into the white house and all would be good. You're not living in "real ville".
-
Cruz didn't sell out. The GOP decided they didn't want him and apparently did want Trump instead.
Cruz sold out. Deal with it. He made a speech calling Trump the devil and then made a deal to support that devil. Period. End of. Parsing this is exactly the reason we get nowhere. You won't accept plain truth/evidence/facts as plain truth/evidence/facts.
-
You still have this ridiculous Limbaugh belief that if we just nominated the immaculate conservative then we could just waltz into the white house and all would be good. You're not living in "real ville".
Except I think Rush is a fraud so your whole basis collapses. You are looking for excuses why to not do something. Thats why we are here today. You have excuses and when actual facts present themselves you are armed to the teeth with 'can't', 'wont' and 'shouldn't and talk in soundbytes.
A week ago you were the reluctant/ping pong Trump voter. Now you arent. So before you go off in absolutes, you might be best served taking some time evaluating for yourself why your views change based on situation before arguing about how Reagan's philosophies are dead and gone.
-
Cruz sold out. Deal with it. He made a speech calling Trump the devil and then made a deal to support that devil. Period. End of. Parsing this is exactly the reason we get nowhere. You won't accept plain truth/evidence/facts as plain truth/evidence/facts.
Nope, I don't agree with you. But, I do accept that you believe that.
-
Cruz pledged to support the candidate who won the primaries. No doubt it pained him to do so....he kept his word while all around him others lied, schemed, and blithered like the idiots they are.
-
Nope, I don't agree with you. But, I do accept that you believe that.
You don't have to believe me. I'm not the guy that sold out. I didn't make the situation that happened. But that situation did in fact happen. It is a sellout by any definition and regardless, what you believe has no bearing on the truth of it.
-
Cruz pledged to support the candidate who won the primaries. No doubt it pained him to do so....he kept his word while all around him others lied, schemed, and blithered like the idiots they are.
He sold out. His speech "Let me tell you what I think of Donald Trump" is every bit as binding as they are the words he himself spoke.
-
It is NOT to early to lay the groundwork for 2020, We know the 'GOP' will nominate someone related to the Kardasians next time. There is ample proof they left US Conservatives many, many moons ago and yet some hang onto them just like a Battered Wife hangs onto 'her' Man. It's a Syndrome that can't be explained.
If Trump is gonna lose by 50+ Electoral Votes, It makes no sense to vote for an individual that can deny hellary her 270 and force this into the House, the polling is saying it's not even probable.
The Constitution Party looks like a solid vehicle, their Platform is VERY Conservative, to put our time and effort into for the next 4 years, maybe Cruz and Lee could get on board, but even if I'm dreaming, Evan has as much chance to stop the hellary train as does Johnson or Stein.
-
Cruz pledged to support the candidate who won the primaries. No doubt it pained him to do so....he kept his word while all around him others lied, schemed, and blithered like the idiots they are.
:amen:
-
He sold out. His speech "Let me tell you what I think of Donald Trump" is every bit as binding as they are the words he himself spoke.
And yet the words "I endorse Donald Trump" have never come out of his mouth.
-
It is NOT to early to lay the groundwork for 2020, We know the 'GOP' will nominate someone related to the Kardasians next time. There is ample proof they left US Conservatives many, many moons ago and yet some hang onto them just like a Battered Wife hangs onto 'her' Man. It's a Syndrome that can't be explained.
If Trump is gonna lose by 50+ Electoral Votes, It makes no sense to vote for an individual that can deny hellary her 270 and force this into the House, the polling is saying it's not even probable.
The Constitution Party looks like a solid vehicle, their Platform is VERY Conservative, to put our time and effort into for the next 4 years, maybe Cruz and Lee could get on board, but even if I'm dreaming, Evan has as much chance to stop the hellary train as does Johnson or Stein.
Yes lets split the vote 50/50 so the left will run roughshod for the next 30 years, just like the last 30...
Good plan.
(https://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/get.gif)
-
And yet the words "I endorse Donald Trump" have never come out of his mouth.
One could never say the words "I endorse pedophillia" and yet still bring young children to be babysat by perverts too. Actions speak louder than words or pledges.
-
Yes lets split the vote 50/50 so the left will run roughshod for the next 30 years, just like the last 30...
Good plan.
(https://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/get.gif)
Then you should do yourself and us a favor and move on to a discussion better aligned with your political philosophy.
-
Yes lets split the vote 50/50 so the left will run roughshod for the next 30 years, just like the last 30...
Good plan.
Well @Weird Tolkienish Figure, Your GOP has done such a remarkable job, just keep going.
(http://www.birchgold.com/wp-content/uploads/definition-insanity.jpg)
-
I remain a huge Cruz supporter; those who feel he 'sold out' are entitled to their opinion. I remain a supporter because he has a conservative voting record, stellar record as a Solicitor General and saved our butts with the Heller v. DC argument and saved our sovereignty in the Medellin v. TX argument. If you consider him standing behind the nominee of his party to be a sell out so be it. I have no doubt that Cruz is doing what he feels is best for country; handing Hillary the opportunity to select a justice or justices to the Supreme Court isn't in this country's best interest. Whatever way one decides how they need to vote to stop Hillary is up to them. IMHO if you're simply voting to send a message or punish the GOP, the only one you're punishing is those of us who want to save this country. I could give a damn about this GOP but I love this country and our Constitution. I would like to see them both stand rather than see them fall.
-
I remain a huge Cruz supporter; those who feel he 'sold out' are entitled to their opinion. I remain a supporter because he has a conservative voting record, stellar record as a Solicitor General and saved our butts with the Heller v. DC argument and saved our sovereignty in the Medellin v. TX argument. If you consider him standing behind the nominee of his party to be a sell out so be it. I have no doubt that Cruz is doing what he feels is best for country; handing Hillary the opportunity to select a justice or justices to the Supreme Court isn't in this country's best interest. Whatever way one decides how they need to vote to stop Hillary is up to them. IMHO if you're simply voting to send a message or punish the GOP, the only one you're punishing is those of us who want to save this country. I could give a damn about this GOP but I love this country and our Constitution. I would like to see them both stand rather than see them fall.
It's not opinion. It's fact demonstrated by action.
-
Then you should do yourself and us a favor and move on to a discussion better aligned with your political philosophy.
:shrug: I'm a libertarian conservative. I thought this was a forum conducive to that thought.
This isn't an ideological discussion IMO, but a tactical one. Because Trumpism ain't the answer, we all pretty much agree to that.
-
It's not opinion. It's fact demonstrated by action.
It's your opinion as to Cruz's motives.
-
It's your opinion as to Cruz's motives.
This is your argument from yesterday. Motives don't mean a thing when the end result is the same. Thats 100% ends justifying the means.
-
I'm a libertarian conservative. I thought this was a forum conducive to that thought.
This isn't an ideological discussion IMO, but a tactical one. Because Trumpism ain't the answer, we all pretty much agree to that.
Most of us do agree to that.
But it's not a tactical discussion -- or at least, it shouldn't be. Tactics are what you use to implement a strategy, and it is the strategy that we lack. And above strategy is the answer to the question, "what are we fighting for?" And we lack that answer, too.
What's really needed is to consider first principles, and to decide what it is, really, that we're fighting for. If we can explain that to ourselves, and to others, then we've got a shot at turning things around.
-
Most of us do agree to that.
But it's not a tactical discussion -- or at least, it shouldn't be. Tactics are what you use to implement a strategy, and it is the strategy that we lack. And above strategy is the answer to the question, "what are we fighting for?" And we lack that answer, too.
What's really needed is to consider first principles, and to decide what it is, really, that we're fighting for. If we can explain that to ourselves, and to others, then we've got a shot at turning things around.
And THAT is my entire point.
-
This is your argument from yesterday. Motives don't mean a thing when the end result is the same. Thats 100% ends justifying the means.
Whatever.
-
And THAT is my entire point.
No, it's not. Your "entire point" is that Norm knows all, and nobody else's ideas or motives matter. You're more a symptom of the problem -- this unquenchable need to excommunicate conservatives who don't agree with you on every single point. That's why "conservatism" -- individually defined -- has resulted in toxic factional posturing.
-
Whatever.
Actually no it's not 'whatever'. How can you with a straight face talk about first principles and then blow off the very heart of them? Do you think conservatism is an ends/means philosophy? Or do think it is principle based? If it is principle based then the ends never justify the means. Principled action justifies the means.
What this comes down to is you don't like the messenger so you discount the message.
-
He sold out. His speech "Let me tell you what I think of Donald Trump" is every bit as binding as they are the words he himself spoke.
You are persistent; I'll give you that. :smash:
-
No, it's not. Your "entire point" is that Norm knows all, and nobody else's ideas or motives matter. You're more a symptom of the problem -- this unquenchable need to excommunicate conservatives who don't agree with you on every single point. That's why "conservatism" -- individually defined -- has resulted in toxic factional posturing.
Whatever...
-
You are persistent; I'll give you that. :smash:
Well you tell me then. Which Ted Cruz statement was true and which was not. They cannot both be.
-
Not pointing fingers or mentions names BUT
Some of us are more 'unpure' than others of us, obviously.
****slapping
-
Not pointing fingers or mentions names BUT
Some of us are more 'unpure' than others of us, obviously.
****slapping
^-^
-
Actually no it's not 'whatever'. How can you with a straight face talk about first principles and then blow off the very heart of them? Do you think conservatism is an ends/means philosophy? Or do think it is principle based? If it is principle based then the ends never justify the means. Principled action justifies the means.
What this comes down to is you don't like the messenger so you discount the message.
On the contrary. I'm sure you're a very nice person. It's your message that I discount. You're propounding an utterly rigid ideology that permits no variation in belief or behavior. It is a philosophy that requires you to fully know the particulars of every situation.
As a result, everybody is, to you, a potential enemy.
You, sir, need to lighten up.
-
On the contrary. I'm sure you're a very nice person. It's your message that I discount. You're propounding an utterly rigid ideology that permits no variation in belief or behavior. It is a philosophy that requires you to fully know the particulars of every situation.
As a result, everybody is, to you, a potential enemy.
You, sir, need to lighten up.
Why is it rigid? We havent even GOTTEN to a coherent philosophy yet. this entire branch of the conversation is predicated on the fact that conservatives can't agree on anything.
I am asking one core thing. What do we believe? Thats it. Tear everything else away. The personalities, the memes, the emoticons...what do we believe?
Now. Before we establish that, the rest is moot. I believe in the Reagan vision of conservatism. The guy that said 'We arent going to hand the party over." The guy that didn't make quantum shifts in his beliefs depending on who his opponent was or abandon his base for pledges he should never have made to begin with. A man that admitted mistakes but fought like a demon for his principles and what he KNEW to be right because he thought them through.
Now is that wrong? Is it WRONG to stand on what we believe and fight for it? Thats what I'm doing. Thats what a lot of people refuse to and get 6 ways of torqued about. I know what I believe. Do you? Then fight for it instead of 'whatever-ing' and complaining about demonization and purity.
Convince me of your position like Reagan convinced people of his. Because THAT is what we have to do. But we can't as a group until we know and agree on something.
-
Why is it rigid?
I couldn't say why it's rigid -- you'll need to explain to us why that's so. All I know is, you've labeled everybody who doesn't adhere to your standards concerning Trump to be "evil." Pretty rigid.
We haven't even GOTTEN to a coherent philosophy yet. this entire branch of the conversation is predicated on the fact that conservatives can't agree on anything.
I am asking one core thing. What do we believe? Thats it. Tear everything else away. The personalities, the memes, the emoticons...what do we believe?
No, Norm, that's not what you're doing. Your part in this conversation has been to tear into anybody who doesn't agree with you. To call them evil, to call them "sellouts." Because apparently you know what's right, and they're not doing it. You don't listen; and you don't consider other points of view, except to reject them.
It's not a way to gain agreement, it's a way to guarantee that conservatism will continue to splinter.
Convince me of your position like Reagan convinced people of his. Because THAT is what we have to do. But we can't as a group until we know and agree on something.
It's become quite evident that nobody can convince you of anything that you don't already believe.
-
I couldn't say why it's rigid -- you'll need to explain to us why that's so. All I know is, you've labeled everybody who doesn't adhere to your standards concerning Trump to be "evil." Pretty rigid.
No, Norm, that's not what you're doing. Your part in this conversation has been to tear into anybody who doesn't agree with you. To call them evil, to call them "sellouts." Because apparently you know what's right, and they're not doing it. You don't listen; and you don't consider other points of view, except to reject them.
It's not a way to gain agreement, it's a way to guarantee that conservatism will continue to splinter.
It's become quite evident that nobody can convince you of anything that you don't already believe.
So as I said, this is about personalities for you.
Trump is evil. You want to deny that?
you don't want to fight for your position and just complain that someone does? Fine.
If you can't get someone to agree with something as basic as 'situational ethics is not conservative' to begin with without an emotion based response, then what sort of conservatism do you suppose is going to come out of the kumbaya meeting of the tribes? I'll tell you. 'The GOP' that just blew up with megaton force because you are laying the groundwork for a full historical repeat.
-
He sold out. His speech "Let me tell you what I think of Donald Trump" is every bit as binding as they are the words he himself spoke.
We Trump supporters kept telling Cruz was a sellout but you wouldn't believe us. Well know you know we were right and you were wrong. Enjoy 40 years of wandering in the political wilderness.
-
And yet the words "I endorse Donald Trump" have never come out of his mouth.
(http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a2/23/0e/a2230e4f8db03151714d6281e646c0c8.jpg)
-
We Trump supporters kept telling Cruz was a sellout but you wouldn't believe us. Well know you know we were right and you were wrong. Enjoy 40 years of wandering in the political wilderness.
As long as you and your fellow travelers travel somewhere other than the wilderness, that sounds like a fantastic idea.
-
On the contrary. I'm sure you're a very nice person. It's your message that I discount. You're propounding an utterly rigid ideology that permits no variation in belief or behavior. It is a philosophy that requires you to fully know the particulars of every situation.
As a result, everybody is, to you, a potential enemy.
You, sir, need to lighten up.
Yeah. What a lot of conservative ideologues call "principles" is just another word for being dogmatic.
Libertarians have the same issue. Some will fight to death to defund public libraries and such without any variation in thought.
Mindless adherence to any dogma is bad IMO.
-
So as I said, this is about personalities for you.
In a sense -- it's about your personality, and your inability to play well with others.
There's simply no point in trying to discuss anything with you. You immediately dive into absolute condemnations of anybody who doesn't fully agree with your point of view. You've been doing it on this thread, as you've tended to do pretty much everywhere.
-
As long as you and your fellow travelers travel somewhere other than the wilderness, that sounds like a fantastic idea.
We sure as heck don't want you in our tribe that's for sure. So yeah where ever you are we will be far far away. Unless, that is, you come to your senses and help us elect Trump so we can save the country, the constitution and unborn Americans, then you would be welcome to join us.
-
In a sense -- it's about your personality, and your inability to play well with others.
There's simply no point in trying to discuss anything with you. You immediately dive into absolute condemnations of anybody who doesn't fully agree with your point of view. You've been doing it on this thread, as you've tended to do pretty much everywhere.
It's this black and white, all or nothing viewpoint that a lot on the right have IMO. I have mentioned this in another thread, most conservatives just aren't deep thinkers.
-
In a sense -- it's about your personality, and your inability to play well with others.
There's simply no point in trying to discuss anything with you. You immediately dive into absolute condemnations of anybody who doesn't fully agree with your point of view. You've been doing it on this thread, as you've tended to do pretty much everywhere.
Then put me on ignore. It's that simple. You obviously want to fixate on me the person, not my points as you continually avoid them all. So do us both a favor and ignore me henceforth. Neither of us has any use for the other.
-
It's this black and white, all or nothing viewpoint that a lot on the right have IMO. I have mentioned this in another thread, most conservatives just aren't deep thinkers.
Then by all means refute my/our/the binary world view we have with your deep thought that does not involve more repeats of things already done that got us here. I welcome it. 100%
-
We sure as heck don't want you in our tribe that's for sure. So yeah where ever you are we will be far far away. Unless, that is, you come to your senses and help us elect Trump so we can save the country, the constitution and unborn Americans, then you would be welcome to join us.
There is no sense involved in electing a liberal. Only liberalism.
-
And yet the words "I endorse Donald Trump" have never come out of his mouth.
He said he would vote for him, which is the same conclusion that a lot of thoughtful Patriotic folks around here came to. Unless Cruz was ready to lead an Exodus to a 3rd party I don't see what else he could have done.
-
When one gets the same/similar feedback from multiple sources, it might behoove one to at least consider it.
-
Then by all means refute my/our/the binary world view we have with your deep thought that does not involve more repeats of things already done that got us here. I welcome it. 100%
That is exactly what I am doing.
-
He said he would vote for him, which is the same conclusion that a lot of thoughtful Patriotic folks around here came to. Unless Cruz was ready to lead an Exodus to a 3rd party I don't see what else he could have done.
There has been some discussion of exactly that.
-
When one gets the same/similar feedback from multiple sources, it might behoove one to at least consider it.
Depends on the source doesn't it. From what I see, most of it is coming from the very type of people I rail against. People that make excuses instead of stand on principle. From where I sit it looks like those people like the system as it is and are damn upset about having their complacency challenged.
Now if you'd like to challenge my own ---positions--- instead of trying to brigade this like a Tumblr/Reddit thread, by all means, do so.
-
That is exactly what I am doing.
Lets simplify this for everyone:
___________________________________
Trump and his ilk is/are whats wrong not the solution. Y/N
Situational ethics are not conservative. Y/N
We should take a big tent approach and get along with all people claiming to be conservative. Y/N
We should stand on Principle. Y/N
Principle is more important than winning with evil/liberal candidates. Y/N
-
Well @Weird Tolkienish Figure, Your GOP has done such a remarkable job, just keep going.
(http://www.birchgold.com/wp-content/uploads/definition-insanity.jpg)
Sure, Einstein.*
With that attitude, nobody would find his way to Carnegie Hall!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NhMiH5wXf6Y/UdiO7go8E0I/AAAAAAAAGaQ/ATnwA_CUM8Q/s1600/malcolm_gladwell_quotes_outliers.png)
Goebbels pointed out that one theory of propaganda (the "English" one) was that repeating a lie gets it believed. How could that be true if repetition didn't yield different results?
(http://1ev1it27w95q1s9gn1crubsn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Pinocchio_Lying.jpg)
Or how about the butterfly effect, where a small change in initial conditions of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in a large change at a later state. So if you are operating in such a system, your input may be identically repeated, but a small difference in the system parameters can yield very different results.
(http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/9e4cfce0-a094-431a-82b6-844c24b7459e/7bf7e90b-2372-435c-8015-98f620d31125.jpg)
In other words, it's not necessarily insane to be persistent. The Dems have successfully advanced agendum after agendum via incrementalism. Sure, it's more difficult to enact retrograde (reactionary) incrementalism, but abandoning it for hopes of miracle "resets" is very risky. Maybe we're at the point where there's no hope for America but a "Hail Mary," but I don't think so.
*Yes, I recognize the quote is actually from Narcotics Anonymous, not Albert Einstein, but it just really irritates me.
-
Motives don't mean a thing when the end result is the same.
@Norm Lenhart
Is this a guiding philosophy of yours?
I'm not looking to argue nor agree...I'm just curious and trying to understand your thought.
-
Then put me on ignore. It's that simple. You obviously want to fixate on me the person, not my points as you continually avoid them all. So do us both a favor and ignore me henceforth. Neither of us has any use for the other.
Actually, Norm, I think you have something to bring to the table, which is why I'm making the effort.
The problem is, you simply refuse to consider any viewpoints other than your own. I know for a fact that some have put you on "ignore" for that very reason.
Which is fine, if your goal is to be completely ineffectual. However, if you want to make a difference, you're going to need to learn a little humility.
-
@Norm Lenhart
Is this a guiding philosophy of yours?
I'm not looking to argue nor agree...I'm just curious and trying to understand your thought.
My guiding philosophy and understanding why I believe what I believe... "Look before you leap, think before you act".
As TBR isn't my first rodeo and my actual job was largely though not exclusively connected to political people and issues, I have had many, many years to consider my positions and have them challenged by countless people. And over those years I have seen the exact same excuses repeated over x1,000,000.
We do this every 2/4 years. Same people. Same arguements. Same excuses for the same mistakes.
it's time to stop playing Ring around the Rosie and settle this mess. People that want to stand on principle should go one way and those that don't should go another. All we do is fight each other, not Democrats or the leftist establishment.
We do not agree when it matters or on what matters. So lets go our seperate waus in philosophy and the better philosophy will then have a chance to succeed.
-
I believe in the Reagan vision of conservatism. . . . The guy that didn't make quantum shifts in his beliefs depending on who his opponent was or abandon his base for pledges he should never have made to begin with.
Sorry, but President Reagan made compromises. He worked with Tip O'Neill to get things passed that weren't exactly how either would have preferred. You would have excoriated him. As he said in his autobiography:
When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it. “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.
I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: “I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.”
If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
--Ronald Reagan, An American Life (1990)
-
Actually, Norm, I think you have something to bring to the table, which is why I'm making the effort.
The problem is, you simply refuse to consider any viewpoints other than your own. I know for a fact that some have put you on "ignore" for that very reason.
Which is fine, if your goal is to be completely ineffectual. However, if you want to make a difference, you're going to need to learn a little humility.
Thats where you are sorely mistaken. I have considered your viewpoints long before you presented them. And rejected them. Whether I'm ineffectual or not is not for me to decide. or consider. I explained why earlier.
-
Sorry, but President Reagan made compromises. He worked with Tip O'Neill to get things passed that weren't exactly how either would have preferred. You would have excoriated him. As he said in his autobiography:
Reagan compromised twice on major issues. He later admitted that both were mistakes. In both cases the Dems had flatly lied and he mistakenly took them at their word.
Abortion as Gov. Amnesty as Prez.
-
We do this every 2/4 years. Same people. Same arguements. Same excuses for the same mistakes.
Sadly, that's true.
it's time to stop playing Ring around the Rosie and settle this mess. People that want to stand on principle should go one way and those that don't should go another. All we do is fight each other, not Democrats or the leftist establishment.
We do not agree when it matters or on what matters. So lets go our seperate waus in philosophy and the better philosophy will then have a chance to succeed.
Maybe I'm hoping for unicorns and rainbows, but I'd prefer to find a way to work together, just redirecting our fight.
-
There is no sense involved in electing a liberal. Only liberalism.
If Trump is a liberal he is a classical liberal, a classical liberal is very close to an American conservative. Hillary on the other hand is a full blown Marxist with strong fascist tendencies. Since survival is one of my high priorities I'm for Trump. War with Russia over Syria, does not strike me as a good idea.
-
Sadly, that's true.
Maybe I'm hoping for unicorns and rainbows, but I'd prefer to find a way to work together, just redirecting our fight.
I would too. No joke. But if we cannot agree that situational ethics are bad then is there hope? I don't think so. Thats core. That underpins the whole idea of Principle. If we cant agree on the core, than there is no getting along anywhere because we will always be at war with each other.
It's the ugly truth.
-
He said he would vote for him, which is the same conclusion that a lot of thoughtful Patriotic folks around here came to. Unless Cruz was ready to lead an Exodus to a 3rd party I don't see what else he could have done.
Cruz had no choice, either endorse Trump or die (politically) Cruz did the only thing he could. Prior to Cruz endorsing Trump he was dead to me. Now I might vote for him in the primary unless he is up against Abbott or Patrick.
-
If Trump is a liberal he is a classical liberal, a classical liberal is very close to an American conservative. Hillary on the other hand is a full blown Marxist with strong fascist tendencies. Since survival is one of my high priorities I'm for Trump. War with Russia over Syria, does not strike me as a good idea.
No, he's a classical idiot. He's a regular liberal as his record shows.
-
Thats where you are sorely mistaken. I have considered your viewpoints long before you presented them. And rejected them.
Ah, well. I'll make one final effort.
Read what you just said, and pretend that somebody else wrote it. Doesn't it sound like a fellow who's just a bit too sure of himself?
Whether I'm ineffectual or not is not for me to decide. or consider. I explained why earlier.
You're wrong. Whether or not you're ineffectual depends a great deal on the way you behave.
I mean, if you want to be typing long rants that nobody reads, I guess that's your choice. But damn, that's a lonely way to live.
-
Cruz had no choice, either endorse Trump or die (politically)
Then he should have stepped aside.
-
Ah, well. I'll make one final effort.
Read what you just said, and pretend that somebody else wrote it. Doesn't it sound like a fellow who's just bit too sure of himself?
You're wrong. Whether or not you're ineffectual depends a great deal on the way you behave.
I mean, if you want to be typing long rants that nobody reads, I guess that's your choice. But damn, that's a lonely way to live.
That ignore button is your best option. I'm not changing anything.
-
If Trump is a liberal he is a classical liberal, a classical liberal is very close to an American conservative. Hillary on the other hand is a full blown Marxist with strong fascist tendencies. Since survival is one of my high priorities I'm for Trump. War with Russia over Syria, does not strike me as a good idea.
Except for his policy on taxes, minimum wage, bailouts, the national debt, the first amendment, and the second amendment. Trump is a classic liberal if your pattern is Ted Kennedy.
-
Cruz had no choice, either endorse Trump or die (politically) Cruz did the only thing he could. Prior to Cruz endorsing Trump he was dead to me. Now I might vote for him in the primary unless he is up against Abbott or Patrick.
WoW, sometimes your utterance's are so absent of logic and rational I just have to think @jpsb means Just Post $hit Because.
-
If Trump is a liberal he is a classical liberal
Uh, no. He is nothing like a classical liberal. His view on property rights (Kelo) should have tipped you off. Think 'NSDAP' liberal instead.
-
I'm not changing anything.
Of course you're not. **nononono*
-
Reagan compromised twice on major issues. He later admitted that both were mistakes. In both cases the Dems had flatly lied and he mistakenly took them at their word.
Abortion as Gov. Amnesty as Prez.
But you seem to dismiss people out of hand when they (in your eyes) err, without regard for them possibly redeeming themselves by recognizing a mistake.
And Reagan compromised on a whole host of other issues. While you might find multiple tax hikes or increases in social spending "minor," many conservatives wouldn't have agreed, but even if they were minor, I have to say that you come across as holding any transgressions as "major."
Perhaps you don't care how you come across. I'm just letting you know what I see.
-
Then he should have stepped aside.
@jpsb
Yeah that old losing as a winning strategy still doesnt work @Norm Lenhart
Cruz is one of the most conservative members of the Senate and you want him to step down? Opening the door for some uber liberal to take over.
wow
-
Of course you're not. **nononono*
Nope. I'm not. No remorse about it either. NONE.
-
Now I might vote for him in the primary unless he is up against Abbott or Patrick.
With all the Ethical Charges against Patrick, He'd be Lucky to be Elected Dog Cather in his County next go round.
Abbott will break Perry's record of consecutive terms if he so desires, he has no desire to be a senator, as I believe neither does Perry. IMHO
-
If Trump is a liberal he is a classical liberal . . .
(http://rs222.pbsrc.com/albums/dd228/chockaholick/animated%20gifs/thcoffeescreen.gif~c200)
:silly:
Is that meant as a joke?
-
@jpsb
Yeah that old losing as a winning strategy still doesnt work @Norm Lenhart
Cruz is one of the most conservative members of the Senate and you want him to step down? Opening the door for some uber liberal to take over.
wow
No point in a man you can't trust being there.
-
Uh, no. He is nothing like a classical liberal. His view on property rights (Kelo) should have tipped you off. Think 'NSDAP' liberal instead.
It's a mistake to try to tie Trump to any particular political viewpoint.
What he is, is a shapeshifter. He'll turn into whatever he thinks he needs to be, in order to get what he wants.
It's what you get, when you cross a demagogue with a narcissist.
-
, without regard for them possibly redeeming themselves by recognizing a mistake.
Well thats the crux of it now isn't it. They *arent* recognizing a mistake and they are plowing ahead repeatedly with the exact same mindset they hold every year. "Lesser evil - No matter what" no matter how many times their liberals lose or how far their liberals take the country left when they win.
They just keep empowering L I B E R A L S.
Strange that. I thought 'I was the rigid/stubborn/inflexible one.
-
No point in a man you can't trust being there.
@Norm Lenhart
Well since the only perfect man is Jesus and he isn't a candidate I guess you are stuck on losing.
-
@Norm Lenhart
Well since the only perfect man is Jesus and he isn't a candidate I guess you are stuck on losing.
More of the same excuses.
-
With all the Ethical Charges against Patrick, He'd be Lucky to be Elected Dog Cather in his County next go round.
Abbott will break Perry's record of consecutive terms if he so desires, he has no desire to be a senator, as I believe neither does Perry. IMHO
IMHO if Donny is serious about starting a Super PAC to try and oust Cruz in two years...Governor Good Hair (a.k.a. Rick Perry) will be the one who jumps at the opportunity to do it.
-
@Smokin Joe
You wouldn't stand a chance against a modern Army with modern weapons. There is zero doubt in my mind that the UN would instantly grant authority to say the Chinese military or the Russian military to assist Hillary in taking the guns away.
All for he children you know.
Nope the 2cd is gone once Hillary takes office and packs the courts with Marxist judges. And you can forget about ever over turning Rode v Wade or keeping your freedom of religion.
Every conservative principle y'all claim to have is finished with Hillary as president. Gone forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSuFj1Jii4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSuFj1Jii4)
As for against a modern army with modern weapons, we have one. If no one in it has the stones to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as they swore to do, the Country is done. Any president who permits foreign troops to attack Americans on our soil is a fair target, and should be removed from office by any means necessary. American Forces which permit that have violated their oath and lose legitimacy. Any Government which permits that to continue is a fair target, at every level.
I don't need to point out that it won't be "America" any more at that point, and that the Government will have nullified any authority it has.
Insurgent forces don't operate toe to toe with massed armies. They take out specific targets to bring down a regime, weaken it, and negate those advantages. Look at the last 50 years of warfare, and you see it more and more across the globe. If it comes to that, it comes to that.
If you aren't a fan of the UN operating troops on our shores, perhaps you should check out the Constitution Party platform.
-
Well then why not Hillary? I mean if character does not matter, you have no case against anyone.
Logic does not fit into his world view.
-
This is your argument from yesterday. Motives don't mean a thing when the end result is the same. Thats 100% ends justifying the means.
Yes, motives are relevant.
Man shoots man, DRT.
Police investigate.
Shooter was showing acquaintance his new pistol, had a negligent discharge with fatal result: Accident (stupidity)
Shooter did not know dead man who attacked him with a knife: self defense
Shooter knew man who came demanding money the shooter owed him: ? self defense or not?
Shooter caught the man who had been having an affair with the shooter's wife: manslaughter or more.
Shooter stalked that SOB and gunned him down for taking his girl back in High School. Murder 1
Uh huh, motive counts.
I am disappointed Cruz gave a grudging and belated "endorsement", as the fulfillment of an obligation and without apparent enthusiasm. It seemed apparent from his remarks that he was fulfilling a promise he wished he had not made. To me that is far separated from the enthusiastic and early drum-beating endorsements of Christie and Carson, just to name a couple.
So, if you look at a chart somewhere, in the first example, one shot and dead. As statistics go, checkmark in the box, that is that.
Cruz endorsed Trump, checkmark in the box. But as far as his reputation goes, Self defense or Murder 1?
I won't hold it against Cruz so much because it was the fulfillment of a promise made, and frankly, under pretty serious duress. By not fulfilling that promise, Trump could actually portray Cruz as the liar that Trump had said Cruz was throughout the primary campaign. Cruz stripped Trump of that.
-
Cruz had no choice, either endorse Trump or die (politically) Cruz did the only thing he could. Prior to Cruz endorsing Trump he was dead to me. Now I might vote for him in the primary unless he is up against Abbott or Patrick.
Thanks. Cruz acted under duress, with a political gun to this head. Nice to see one of your camp admit it.
-
Well then why not Hillary? I mean if character does not matter, you have no case against anyone.
Excellent point, @RAT Patrol !
If there is no moral case against voting for Trump, there is also no moral case against voting for Hillary.
If we decide that integrity is not something we require, we can vote for Charles Manson and feel justified, if he just yells "WALL!!" enough times.
I don't think those seeking to convince us to vote against our values have thought things through to their logical conclusion.
-
No point in a man you can't trust being there.
I doubt Cruz will let himself get painted into such a corner again. When that pledge was made Trump hadn't even started what turned out to be an unprecedented campaign of lies, personal attacks, and smears, and did not seem like a likely winner. In a normal year, with more equitable media coverage, I don't think Trump would have gone anywhere.
-
Yes, motives are relevant.
Man shoots man, DRT.
Police investigate.
Shooter was showing acquaintance his new pistol, had a negligent discharge with fatal result: Accident (stupidity)
Shooter did not know dead man who attacked him with a knife: self defense
Shooter knew man who came demanding money the shooter owed him: ? self defense or not?
Shooter caught the man who had been having an affair with the shooter's wife: manslaughter or more.
Shooter stalked that SOB and gunned him down for taking his girl back in High School. Murder 1
Uh huh, motive counts.
I am disappointed Cruz gave a grudging and belated "endorsement", as the fulfillment of an obligation and without apparent enthusiasm. It seemed apparent from his remarks that he was fulfilling a promise he wished he had not made. To me that is far separated from the enthusiastic and early drum-beating endorsements of Christie and Carson, just to name a couple.
So, if you look at a chart somewhere, in the first example, one shot and dead. As statistics go, checkmark in the box, that is that.
Cruz endorsed Trump, checkmark in the box. But as far as his reputation goes, Self defense or Murder 1?
I won't hold it against Cruz so much because it was the fulfillment of a promise made, and frankly, under pretty serious duress. By not fulfilling that promise, Trump could actually portray Cruz as the liar that Trump had said Cruz was throughout the primary campaign. Cruz stripped Trump of that.
What about the promise he made to his supporters? That of being principled? The man went out, made the ""Let me tell you what I think about Donald Trump" comments that are 100% about why no conservative could possibly vote for such a man.
"And I will say, there are millions of people in this country who are angry. They’re angry at Washington, they’re angry at politicians who have lied to them, I understand that anger. I share that anger. And Donald is cynically exploiting that anger, and he is lying to his supporters.
Donald will betray his supporters on every issue. If you care about immigration, Donald is laughing at you. And he’s telling the moneyed elites that he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, he’s not gonna build a wall – that’s what he told the New York Times, he will betray you on every issue across the board."
There is zero wiggle room there. None. For him to go out and then endorse Trump, which he did whether or not he spoke 4 words, is a total reversal of his statement above. How does one get from "he will betray you on every issue across the board." to working actively to getting that man elected without passing squarely through "sell out"?
On Motive:
Where/at what point, if any, does motive become a disqualifying factor to an end? If one motive is noble and pure as the driven snow to get to X, and another is as vile and corrupt and evil as hell itself to get to X, then are both OK? Is that not situational ethics? Is that not the end result justifying the means of arrival?
-
Cruz pledged to support the candidate who won the primaries. No doubt it pained him to do so....he kept his word while all around him others lied, schemed, and blithered like the idiots they are.
Exactly. Cruz, once again, stuck to his principles even though he certainly was aware that small-minded people would demonize him for it.
He never endorsed The Donald by name. He simply decided to vote against Hillary for several reasons, the main one (I think) being the Supreme Court.
Cruz knows how important the Court is right now... although in a perfect world, it should have very little importance, certainly not to the extent of making law.
Cruz knows the type of people Hillary will appoint.
While he is surely aware of the defects in Trumps' character, he still thinks there is a chance that Trump would appoint a couple of decent judges.
That's why he's supporting him
-
While he is surely aware of the defects in Trumps' character, he still thinks there is a chance that Trump would appoint a couple of decent judges.
That's why he's supporting him
As you know, I'm a bit more cynical about Cruz's motives. Clutching at Trump-shaped straws on judges probably was among his reasons.
But I suspect he was also protecting his political viability: Basically, "would the party support me if I didn't vote for the party's nominee?" The answer being no -- and Cruz was almost certainly told as much behind closed doors -- he had to do what he did, grudgingly and with as little commitment or conviction as possible.
Speaking for myself, I didn't really lose respect for him, as I understand his reasoning. But I'd have a lot more respect for him if he hadn't knuckled under.
-
Well then why not Hillary? I mean if character does not matter, you have no case against anyone.
@RAT Patrol
As I've said many many times on threads you also posted on so I'd imagine you've read my posts.
We have two very deeply flawed candidates. Both are bottom of the barrel material. However one is less likely to nominate uber liberal supreme court justices, is less likely to push massive regulation, less likely to raise taxes and a host of other things Hillary is guaranteed to do. For a while I thought we could depend on the GOP to fight back against Hillarys agenda, then I remembered they have failed to do that for the last 8 years so why would they start now?
One of two candidates will become the president elect in about 3 weeks. There are no other options with a snowballs chance in hades of winning. So you can take your toys and go home or you can try to make the best of a bad situation. Until Conservatives gain positions of power in the GOPe this will not change.
I wish Cruz was an option, or heck just about anyone else, but they aren't.
-
Logic does not fit into his world view.
@Norm Lenhart
Winners make the rules. Losers live with the rules.
-
As you know, I'm a bit more cynical about Cruz's motives. Clutching at Trump-shaped straws on judges probably was among his reasons.
But I suspect he was also protecting his political viability: Basically, "would the party support me if I didn't vote for the party's nominee?" The answer being no -- and Cruz was almost certainly told as much behind closed doors -- he had to do what he did, grudgingly and with as little commitment or conviction as possible.
Speaking for myself, I didn't really lose respect for him, as I understand his reasoning. But I'd have a lot more respect for him if he hadn't knuckled under.
You can call it knuckling under but I call it pragmatism. Okay? And putting the country first. Cruz had zero to gain by voting for Trump. Trump will always hate him. He's on the 'enemies list.'
-
You can call it knuckling under but I call it pragmatism. Okay? And putting the country first. Cruz had zero to gain by voting for Trump. Trump will always hate him. He's on the 'enemies list.'
Call it pragmatism if you'd like; they're not mutually exclusive terms. I believe he did it under pressure, for pragmatic reasons. He has nothing to gain by voting for Trump, but he had a lot to lose by refusing to vote for the Party's candidate.
He'd painted himself into a corner, and there was no cost-free way to get out of it.
-
@Norm Lenhart
Winners make the rules. Losers live with the rules.
I see leadership skills are not among your finer qualities. You basically just said "Accept what you are given or else" which curiously is what destroyed the GOP as a political force.
You also adopted Obama's "I won" mentality. Pretty readily too, come to think of it.
-
Call it pragmatism if you'd like; they're not mutually exclusive terms. I believe he did it under pressure, for pragmatic reasons. He has nothing to gain by voting for Trump, but he had a lot to lose by refusing to vote for the Party's candidate.
He'd painted himself into a corner, and there was no cost-free way to get out of it.
You make a decent argument but the fact is we're gonna need Cruz if we ever re-establish the Republican Party as conservative and decent.
Or somebody like Cruz. But since there's nobody like Cruz, we will need Cruz.
-
I am going to try and never even think about Cruz ever again. I don't live in Texas, so...don't have to. Texans can do whatever they want to. He is valuable in the Senate but I have no power to keep him there or to remove him. I am disappointed big time that he endorsed Trump. That will weight on my scale of big factors to consider if he ever runs for President again.
I'm leaning towards he didn't actually "endorse" Trump, but felt forced to "support" him because of political concerns. I don't understand how he could do so after the filth that Trump threw at him and his family. That was as dirty a personal assault as I've EVER seen from a politician (and Trump IS a politician).
It's hard to fault a politician for being political, but for me the jury's still out for me on Cruz.
We need him in the Senate, and were I in Texas, I'd vote for him.
-
Were I in Texas, I would too. I'm glad I'm not, though, because I feel betrayed by him on this matter.
I understand completely.
-
I understand yall's animosity toward Cruz, though @sinkspur 's attitude is a bitter pill to swallow on this subject, that aside, people lose sight of the fact that he's only 1 in a body of a 100 and usually has 95~98 of them hating his guts on the level of the aforementioned poster. He's only 1 Man and I believe, in spite of this Election's luke warm endorsement of the orange one, He will rise again to fight the Battles Conservatives want and expect him to fight.
-
You make a decent argument but the fact is we're gonna need Cruz if we ever re-establish the Republican Party as conservative and decent.
Or somebody like Cruz. But since there's nobody like Cruz, we will need Cruz.
Somebody like him, intellectually. But I just don't trust him; never have. He's too ambitious for my taste.
-
I understand yall's animosity toward Cruz, though @sinkspur 's attitude is a bitter pill to swallow on this subject, that aside, people lose sight of the fact that he's only 1 in a body of a 100 and usually has 95~98 of them hating his guts on the level of the aforementioned poster. He's only 1 Man and I believe, in spite of this Election's luke warm endorsement of the orange one, He will rise again to fight the Battles Conservatives want and expect him to fight.
I was a strong supporter of his. I fought a lot of battles with whack job Trump cultists on his behalf because I believed in him. So for myself and many like me to get stabbed in the back as he did, That's not forgivable. Its a fundamental breach of trust. And he isn't asking anyway.
-
What about the promise he made to his supporters? That of being principled? The man went out, made the ""Let me tell you what I think about Donald Trump" comments that are 100% about why no conservative could possibly vote for such a man.
"And I will say, there are millions of people in this country who are angry. They’re angry at Washington, they’re angry at politicians who have lied to them, I understand that anger. I share that anger. And Donald is cynically exploiting that anger, and he is lying to his supporters.
Donald will betray his supporters on every issue. If you care about immigration, Donald is laughing at you. And he’s telling the moneyed elites that he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, he’s not gonna build a wall – that’s what he told the New York Times, he will betray you on every issue across the board."
There is zero wiggle room there. None. For him to go out and then endorse Trump, which he did whether or not he spoke 4 words, is a total reversal of his statement above. How does one get from "he will betray you on every issue across the board." to working actively to getting that man elected without passing squarely through "sell out"?
On Motive:
Where/at what point, if any, does motive become a disqualifying factor to an end? If one motive is noble and pure as the driven snow to get to X, and another is as vile and corrupt and evil as hell itself to get to X, then are both OK? Is that not situational ethics? Is that not the end result justifying the means of arrival?
When did Cruz say he wouldn't ever vote for DT?
-
I understand yall's animosity toward Cruz, though @sinkspur 's attitude is a bitter pill to swallow on this subject, that aside, people lose sight of the fact that he's only 1 in a body of a 100 and usually has 95~98 of them hating his guts on the level of the aforementioned poster. He's only 1 Man and I believe, in spite of this Election's luke warm endorsement of the orange one, He will rise again to fight the Battles Conservatives want and expect him to fight.
Yeah, but who does @sinkspur ever like?
-
I was a strong supporter of his. I fought a lot of battles with whack job Trump cultists on his behalf because I believed in him. So for myself and many like me to get stabbed in the back as he did, That's not forgivable. Its a fundamental breach of trust. And he isn't asking anyway.
As you mentioned earlier, No one's perfect in our mortal world (or something to that effect), and Sen. Cruz never pretended to be.
He's got 2 years to shore up his base for reelection to the Senate and explain why you shouldn't be so butthurt over his actions, and I'm sure He will just laugh it off on his way to a landslide, because in the final analysis, If not him (a proven constitutional Conservative), who will fight these idiots in a Schumer/McConnell Senate?
He has no need to worry about 2018, (if he decides to seek reelection) Texas still love's him and will support him with Time/Money.
-
I see leadership skills are not among your finer qualities. You basically just said "Accept what you are given or else" which curiously is what destroyed the GOP as a political force.
You also adopted Obama's "I won" mentality. Pretty readily too, come to think of it.
@Norm Lenhart
Leadership involves listening to others, making progress where one can and minimizing damage when you cannot. Continuous retreat is not good leadership.
What has destroyed Conservatism is the inability to think beyond ones nose.
-
Yeah, but who does @sinkspur ever like?
@corbe @Sanguine
There is a reason some people hide in their basement playing on the internet. IMO we give too much credence to people who have not managed to accomplish anything in life and never will just because they are a name on a website.
-
@Norm Lenhart
Leadership involves listening to others, making progress where one can and minimizing damage when you cannot. Continuous retreat is not good leadership.
What has destroyed Conservatism is the inability to think beyond ones nose.
Leadership is also knowing when to stop listening to people out to sabotage your entire purpose.
-
As you mentioned earlier, No one's perfect in our mortal world (or something to that effect), and Sen. Cruz never pretended to be.
He's got 2 years to shore up his base for reelection to the Senate and explain why you shouldn't be so butthurt over his actions, and I'm sure He will just laugh it off on his way to a landslide, because in the final analysis, If not him (a proven constitutional Conservative), who will fight these idiots in a Schumer/McConnell Senate?
He has no need to worry about 2018, (if he decides to seek reelection) Texas still love's him and will support him with Time/Money.
Then they should do that if they choose. If he runs for prez in 20, he can count on me not voting for him. You can trust him. I no longer do.
-
Somebody like him, intellectually. But I just don't trust him; never have. He's too ambitious for my taste.
@r9etb
An ambitious Senator?! The horror
How many people without ambition or an unhealthy love over power ever seek to become a Senator?
-
I am going to try and never even think about Cruz ever again. I don't live in Texas, so...don't have to. Texans can do whatever they want to. He is valuable in the Senate but I have no power to keep him there or to remove him. I am disappointed big time that he endorsed Trump. That will weight on my scale of big factors to consider if he ever runs for President again.
You are making a mistake. We need Cruz in the Senate and we will need him in the next election. He did not betray anyone. And he did not endorse Trump. He said he was voting for the Republican candidate.
-
You are making a mistake. We need Cruz in the Senate and we will need him in the next election. He did not betray anyone. And he did not endorse Trump. He said he was voting for the Republican candidate.
Then Bill did not have sex with Monica.
-
Heck, even ol' Jeb! ignores him
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/wp-ag/wp-content/uploads/sites/72/2016/01/cruz-jeb-gif.gif)
-
Trump's on a roll, at a NC Rally today:
“I always say I don’t want to think back, ‘If I did one more rally, I would have won North Carolina by 500 votes instead of losing it by 200 votes,” he said, describing an Election Day possibility. “I never want to say that about myself.”
Less than five minutes later, while urging his supporters to get out and vote, Trump told the crowd: “What a waste of time if we don’t pull this off.”
-
Trump's on a roll, at a NC Rally today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iHmZ4dwO0GY#t=280
-
What about the promise he made to his supporters? That of being principled? The man went out, made the ""Let me tell you what I think about Donald Trump" comments that are 100% about why no conservative could possibly vote for such a man.
"And I will say, there are millions of people in this country who are angry. They’re angry at Washington, they’re angry at politicians who have lied to them, I understand that anger. I share that anger. And Donald is cynically exploiting that anger, and he is lying to his supporters.
Donald will betray his supporters on every issue. If you care about immigration, Donald is laughing at you. And he’s telling the moneyed elites that he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, he’s not gonna build a wall – that’s what he told the New York Times, he will betray you on every issue across the board."
There is zero wiggle room there. None. For him to go out and then endorse Trump, which he did whether or not he spoke 4 words, is a total reversal of his statement above. How does one get from "he will betray you on every issue across the board." to working actively to getting that man elected without passing squarely through "sell out"?
On Motive:
Where/at what point, if any, does motive become a disqualifying factor to an end? If one motive is noble and pure as the driven snow to get to X, and another is as vile and corrupt and evil as hell itself to get to X, then are both OK? Is that not situational ethics? Is that not the end result justifying the means of arrival?
Cruz made the mistake of painting himself into a corner.
Either he lied when he made the pledge, or he was stuck giving support to Trump.
As I said, I doubt he will do that again.
His statement: After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary
In closing, he said: A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment.
That was the time he used the word "endorse" and is anything but a ringing endorsement, more a forced capitulation, and months after the fact.
I'm not about to mistake that for the ringing endorsement the Media would have us believe occurred.
Now, about results. Well, Cruz will vote for him (unless he lied). We'll never know who he votes for.
As for those of us who had already decided not to vote for Trump, who are #nevertrump, it doesn't matter what Cruz does. It's his right to vote however he wants to, and will not affect where I stand, nor where my vote will go. I made no such promise, I took no such pledge, and am free to do as I choose. That was the GOP 'Skull and Bones' moment, where the principled were encouraged to pledge their support for the brand regardless of who won. I really don't think any at that point were taking Trump as a serious contender. Oops. And a lesson for any principled person anywhere, any time, don't take an oath there is any chance you might not want to keep.
So I don't promise anything I am not sure I can deliver.
Back to Cruz. and call this what you will. Grant, first, though, we will likely never see a candidate without stain, without some principle we disagree on. Back to Reagan's 80%, and fight for the other 20 some other day. Cruz, with the exception of having been painted into this corner, comes closer to what we'd want in the White House than the other Republicans. the sad part is that he ended up in such a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' situation to begin with.
It'd be like shooting a family member who was high on meth and attacked you with a knife.
Rotten choices lead to rotten decisions.
That's why we try to keep our choices from being so rotten to begin with. How Trump even got into the race is beyond me.
-
The best I can give you right now is to ignore him. Trump is so extremely vile that it makes no sense. Besides, they all backed out of that so-called agreement at the end of March. INCLUDING TRUMP.
Cruz isn't running for reelection this year, so I'd say that all the talk about him now is only worth a hill of beans.
What'll matter is what he does in the next two years.
If he goes back to being a bomb-thrower without any sort of plan for what happens if his bluffs are called, then he'll end up another Trump. IE: with a hard-core group of nihilist supporters that want to burn everything down... and no one else.
But if he uses the two years to build alliances and put forth the most conservative legislation *THAT CAN PASS*... then he'll get the support he needs beyond that of a small base.
The ball is in his court and he has control over it.
It's a good starting position.
-
Cruz made the mistake of painting himself into a corner.
That's why we try to keep our choices from being so rotten to begin with. How Trump even got into the race is beyond me.
I have a really hard time understanding how the man with such a brilliant mind backed himself into a corner that a bunch of us deewbs on the internet knew enough to avoid and discussed at the time. To me it looks like he gambled big and lost.
Choices: Yup. thats why getting the corrupting idea of 'lesser evil' out of the mix is imperative before it results in this fiasco yet again.
-
It's not opinion. It's fact demonstrated by action.
Norm, I like to look at the whole picture rather than a quick glimpse. If you consider Cruz a sellout that's certainly your opinion; some, including myself, don't feel that way. He's demonstrated more times than not that he is for "We the People' and for our country. He is one of the few conservatives we have left. He deserves a huge pat him on the back for his accomplishments and the excellent ground game he ran against the establishment and Trump. To chastise him for voting his conscience and doing what he feels is best for this country IMHO is absurd. His record speaks for itself and I wish we had more Senators like him.
-
I have a really hard time understanding how the man with such a brilliant mind backed himself into a corner that a bunch of us deewbs on the internet knew enough to avoid and discussed at the time. To me it looks like he gambled big and lost.
Choices: Yup. thats why getting the corrupting idea of 'lesser evil' out of the mix is imperative before it results in this fiasco yet again.
Norm, on that we agree. I have a hard time understanding that, too, except that I think Cruz (and the rest of the field) underestimated the ability of Trump to ensnare the angry and underestimated Trump's willingness to go dirty long and hard through the primary campaign.
I honestly don't think any of those on the ticket were prepared for that rancor, but noticed a couple embraced it pretty early on. Not that I would have considered Christie, anyway, but Carson went way down in my estimation as soon as he toadied up to Trump. All history, now.
We need to start voting for the greater good. We won't get 100%, unless we are very, very lucky. Even so, I will vote for the candidate who best represents my beliefs and principles, above a threshold where I do not consider the % of good to be sufficient to merit my ballot. I think we all function that way, to some degree. I also think we have different thresholds. In Trump's case, the bar is just set too low.
Take a second and tell me how you select a candidate to support (or dump the field).
My methodology, simplified: (all in blue so you can skip it and read on if you choose)
I start with issues. If they don't align there, there's no point. I want 100% but will settle for 90% if the deal-breakers aren't areas of conflict.
Deal-breakers:
Abortion (must be pro life, or set to advance that cause),
Defense (Constitutional duty of the fedGov, including border security and controlling immigration, but not including 'nation building').
Gun Control (just say no, better yet, roll it back).
Global Warming/Climate Change: embrace that as any reason to form policy, lose my vote.
Taxes: Enough already, control spending, balance the budget, downsize all but the military.
Take adversarial positions on those issues and we aren't going to get along.
But the Republican Party demands only lip service to their platform, not adherence to the letter. When was the last time they kicked anyone out? So we are left with a useless label, not a matter of principle unless the candidate chooses to embrace principle. Which is why equating "Republican" with "conservative" has been an egregious mistake and either needs to stop, or Conservatives need to find a new label.
Part of the analysis has to include a credibility factor. Obviously if their stances on the issues don't match up, they get dropped from consideration, but the ones which align have to have a track record that supports those positions. Election year epiphanies don't hold water.
That will usually eliminate most of the rest, if they aren't already gone. Some years, they all are by then.
So that means we go back down the list for the last one on top and decide if we can, in good conscience, vote for them. Thus it has ever been, and ...
I have only cast a couple of ballots in wholehearted support of a candidate, ever, as I was locked into the false dichotomy of only two parties.
I have realized we need more choices, especially as the most likely people in terms of having principles which agree with my own, are going to be on another party ticket besides the Republicans and Democrats. I have found that the principles expressed in those third Party Platforms are more likely to be honest, although sometimes not entirely realistic or even a satire. There have not been the corrupting influences of the Uniparty to distort them, and if they didn't mean it, why bother? Credibility takes a jump there.
It doesn't take much more than time to go down the list of parties (some 70+) and eliminate most from consideration: too liberal, too single issue and not thought out, not serious, simple nutcase ideas, and ferret out those alternate parties which are serious and reasonably aligned. Of those I find one stood out for me.
Then opens a new world of parties squabbling for relevance, of hit pieces written by proponents of one of those parties against the candidate of another, and to some degree, the same sort of fish fighting for who will be the biggest in that smaller pond. Surely, if one is looking for a party to build up for the future, nothing to ignore. The basics apply: if you are taking flack, you're over the target, always find out about the writer of the hit piece and see what they are promoting (usually a competing party), and just because they might be more honest about their beliefs doesn't mean they won't pull dirty tricks to win. (Cody Quirk's hit pieces aimed at Castle, for instance {Quirk is a Libertarian}) But the race to 15% is on in third party circles, and the battle is hard fought for votes.
I would have liked to see a debate among the top three or four 'third' party candidates, just to get their take on the issues, and to see those parties get exposure, to provide that principled alternative for voters. But the MSM won't back that, the big two sure won't, and short of a stellar ballot performance it won't happen. Even now, only the Greens and the Libertarians get mention (another republicrat pair off), and the Constitution Party seldom gets mention. I support the Constitution Party Platform, for the most part, and will vote to bring that into the limelight.
Winning depends on the objective, frankly. If the objective is to gain exposure, bring the Party into the debate, and that is accomplished, I consider that a 'win', this time. I don't expect Castle and Bradley to win the election, but would like to see the Party rise from the obscurity the others languish in. Eventually, short of getting a place in the main debates, whichever of the smaller Parties could win enough EV to force the House to decide might have a shot at altering the political landscape, especially if the House vote is so finely split that one Party might be convinced to vote to deny the other the Presidency by voting for the Third Party candidate. Pipe dreams, I know.
-
@Smokin Joe
Pipe dreams, I know.
As I would infer from your screen name you have smoked plenty. At least now you are smokin' the right stuff.
-
@Smokin Joe
As I would infer from your screen name you have smoked plenty. At least now you are smokin' the right stuff.
Only an expression, Fred. :laugh:(The nickname came from my days as a firefighter, although i smoked cigarettes and cigars for 35 years before i quit.)
-
Only an expression, Fred. :laugh:(The nickname came from my days as a firefighter, although i smoked cigarettes and cigars for 35 years before i quit.)
I know the provenance of the nickname. And I wonder sometimes if it means you were really brave or just really slowwww.
-
Yes lets split the vote 50/50 so the left will run roughshod for the next 30 years, just like the last 30...
Good plan.
You know what's a better plan? Keep voting for the same party that keeps giving us worse and worse candidates so the left will run roughshod for the next 30 years, just like the last 30. /sarc
The Republican Party is dying a slow and painful death right now. Either we prepare for it now by building the basis for the future of conservatism, or we continue to latch on to the sinking ship. Take your pick.
-
You know what's a better plan? Keep voting for the same party that keeps giving us worse and worse candidates so the left will run roughshod for the next 30 years, just like the last 30.
What is bad is that same party's candidate is so far left that all that is left is voting for the left.
-
I know the provenance of the nickname. And I wonder sometimes if it means you were really brave or just really slowwww.
The difference between brave, slow, and stupid (or lucky) is measured at times in milliseconds. That said, in my case it was more a quirk of temperature variation. Just after we knocked down the fire, I came out of the building, soaked and still 'pretty warm' into cold (20 degree) outside air, and the instant fog that formed around me looked like smoke. Someone saw it, and I got a nickname that stuck.
-
You know what's a better plan? Keep voting for the same party that keeps giving us worse and worse candidates so the left will run roughshod for the next 30 years, just like the last 30. /sarc
The Republican Party is dying a slow and painful death right now. Either we prepare for it now by building the basis for the future of conservatism, or we continue to latch on to the sinking ship. Take your pick.
We had 17 candidates this time around. Many were quite good.
The problem isn't the party, per se, but the primary voters that *CHOOSE* the worst candidate of the bunch.
-
Loved that short story. Went lookin for @Smokin Joe, found this guy, what ever happened to him, @DCPatriot ?
(http://www.classicarabia.com/uploads/photos/RS_Art_240_Front_1532_1273024926.jpeg)
-
Loved that short story. Went lookin for @Smokin Joe, found this guy, what ever happened to him, @DCPatriot ?
(http://www.classicarabia.com/uploads/photos/RS_Art_240_Front_1532_1273024926.jpeg)
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:dcpatriot/index?tab=comments
-
@HonestJohn Was he referring to US?
Westwood One Takes Chris Plante National
10/19/2016 4:02:39 AM · 4 of 58
DCPatriot to raccoonradio
“They LOVE their colons....don’t they?”
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies
-
We had 17 candidates this time around. Many were quite good.
The problem isn't the party, per se, but the primary voters that *CHOOSE* the worst candidate of the bunch.
We had some decent candidates in 2012, too, but we got left with Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in the end.
There are politicians with potential in the GOP still. Consider the ones that held out against endorsing Trump as long as they could. Consider a few that still haven't. We have good candidates. We do not have a good party and we don't have a way to make sure the best candidates actually win the primaries. We have governors like Walker and LePage (outbursts aside) fighting the good fight in the states. We have a few Senators, Mike Lee and Ben Sasse (and yes, even Ted Cruz) foremost among them, willing to buck party leadership.
What the Tolkienish one neglects to note is that we, in effect, already have a split party. Note what happened in 2012 and 2014: McConnell vs. Bevin, McDaniel vs. Cochran, Graham vs. everyone, Akin vs. Brunner and Steelman. Consider the differences between John Kasich and Ted Cruz, the two candidates left standing against Trump. We have one sub-party that is older, more moderate, more focused on social issues, and more prone to boilerplate solutions. This is the GOP of old, the one that independents see as the Republican Party, the one they won't even consider. We have another that is younger, bolder, more concerned about fiscal issues, and more willing to buck orthodoxy. This one has potential.
Donald Trump, of course, is neither, but he's exploited a weakness among one of the GOP's most oft-neglected base: rural, working-class voters in the midwest who have been left in the cold by the evolving economy and the GOP's "free trade at all costs" dogma. The side that can best incorporate the needs of us (I count myself among them) will build the coalition for the future.
-
The difference between brave, slow, and stupid (or lucky) is measured at times in milliseconds. That said, in my case it was more a quirk of temperature variation. Just after we knocked down the fire, I came out of the building, soaked and still 'pretty warm' into cold (20 degree) outside air, and the instant fog that formed around me looked like smoke. Someone saw it, and I got a nickname that stuck.
As I get older I really try to go with stupid, slow, brave.
-
You know what's a better plan? Keep voting for the same party that keeps giving us worse and worse candidates so the left will run roughshod for the next 30 years, just like the last 30. /sarc
The Republican Party is dying a slow and painful death right now. Either we prepare for it now by building the basis for the future of conservatism, or we continue to latch on to the sinking ship. Take your pick.
And you seriously think conservatives can work together and rebuild an entire party?
Wanna buy a bridge?
-
And you seriously think conservatives can work together and rebuild an entire party?
Wanna buy a bridge?
dammit i just got to likin' livin' under this bridge...
It would be nice to build a new party.
-
dammit i just got to likin' livin' under this bridge...
It would be nice to build a new party.
Would be much easier to fix the one we got.
-
Yeah, but who does @sinkspur ever like?
Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, others.
Cruz has proven himself to be nothing but a craven opportunist. That he endorsed Trump when Trump was at the height of his popularity indicates that he's a bandwagoneer. To his discredit, Trump sank like a stone a week later.
-
Would be much easier to fix the one we got.
Going to be an ouster then.
-
@corbe @Sanguine
There is a reason some people hide in their basement playing on the internet. IMO we give too much credence to people who have not managed to accomplish anything in life and never will just because they are a name on a website.
That's for sure. The first thing most people accomplish in life is courtesy and not talking behind another person's back.
If you're talking about me in your little screed above, you don't know a goddamned thing about me or what I have accomplished. I also don't understand your hostility. I've barely posted to you and don't remember that I was anything but respectful.
Climb down off your high horse, fella.
-
That's for sure. The first thing most people accomplish in life is courtesy and not talking behind another person's back.
If you're talking about me in your little screed above, you don't know a goddamned thing about me or what I have accomplished. I also don't understand your hostility. I've barely posted to you and don't remember that I was anything but respectful.
Climb down off your high horse, fella.
heh heh heh
-
Would be much easier to fix the one we got.
I thought that too, for as long as I'd want to admit, BUT it's over, (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_z39KcU7ohk/Ui9AAJ8DSnI/AAAAAAAAFfI/c6JIq6zguNg/s1600/h8DAA811B.jpg)
WE have to rebuild somewhere else. The Trump nomination was the final nail in the coffin. We need a new place/party.
The Constitution Party Platform is something every thinking Conservative can get behind.
https://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/ (https://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/)
-
Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, others.
Cruz has proven himself to be nothing but a craven opportunist. That he endorsed Trump when Trump was at the height of his popularity indicates that he's a bandwagoneer. To his discredit, Trump sank like a stone a week later.
He did not endorse Trump when Trump was at the height of his popularity. When the heck was that, anyway. I love Rick Perry but he endorsed Trump with far more enthusiasm than Cruz did. Paul Ryan?
-
I thought that too, for as long as I'd want to admit, BUT it's over, (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_z39KcU7ohk/Ui9AAJ8DSnI/AAAAAAAAFfI/c6JIq6zguNg/s1600/h8DAA811B.jpg)
WE have to rebuild somewhere else. The Trump nomination was the final nail in the coffin. We need a new place/party.
The Constitution Party Platform is something every thinking Conservative can get behind.
The Constitution Party doesn't support an Article Five Convention, which I do.
-
He did not endorse Trump when Trump was at the height of his popularity. When the heck was that, anyway. I love Rick Perry but he endorsed Trump with far more enthusiasm than Cruz did. Paul Ryan?
He endorsed Trump the weekend before the first debate, when Trump was within two points of Hillary. Jump on the rising rocket.
What a mistake.
Yes, I don't appreciate that Perry endorsed Trump, but I don't have to vote for Perry any longer, for anything.
Ryan's the leader we need in the House. Yes, I support him. Strongly. I wish he hadn't endorsed Trump, but he's made it pretty clear where he stands on Trump right now.
-
He endorsed Trump the weekend before the first debate, when Trump was within two points of Hillary. Jump on the rising rocket.
What a mistake.
Yes, I don't appreciate that Perry endorsed Trump, but I don't have to vote for Perry any longer, for anything.
Ryan's the leader we need in the House. Yes, I support him. Strongly. I wish he hadn't endorsed Trump, but he's made it pretty clear where he stands on Trump right now.
Still haven't seen anyone post a quote from Cruz with the words "I endorse Donald Trump for President"
As far as Paul Ryan goes...hes no better than Boehner.
-
The Constitution Party doesn't support an Article Five Convention, which I do.
That Would/Could be a deal Breaker for Me, but Unlike the GOP, some Party Platforms are changed every 2/4 years, by Votes of the delegates, and I think this is the Strongest Horse in the Stable right now.
It needs leadership (I recognize the great strides Mr. Castle has made with it), he is Old and Tired. It needs Young Conservative Blood like Evan, Cruz, Lee and a few Conservative House members AND MONEY.
-
He endorsed Trump the weekend before the first debate, when Trump was within two points of Hillary. Jump on the rising rocket.
What a mistake.
Yes, I don't appreciate that Perry endorsed Trump, but I don't have to vote for Perry any longer, for anything.
Ryan's the leader we need in the House. Yes, I support him. Strongly. I wish he hadn't endorsed Trump, but he's made it pretty clear where he stands on Trump right now.
More often than not, I'm glad your on my side. enemy of my enemy and such........
-
Would be much easier to fix the one we got.
With entrenched opposition holding the money and making the rules? Not likely. **nononono*
-
The Constitution Party doesn't support an Article Five Convention, which I do.
Let me put it this way, Fred. What about the Constitution would you change? The Constitution Party supports getting back to original intent. Most of the things people propose or would propose at an Article V convention are aimed at that goal. If you go there, and still feel the need to underscore the parts of the constitution that are being ignored today, it can be done with Amendments.
An Article V convention has its dangers, too.
-
Let me put it this way, Fred. What about the Constitution would you change? The Constitution Party supports getting back to original intent. Most of the things people propose or would propose at an Article V convention are aimed at that goal. If you go there, and still feel the need to underscore the parts of the constitution that are being ignored today, it can be done with Amendments.
An Article V convention has its dangers, too.
What dangers are that, @Smokin Joe ?
-
What dangers are that, @Smokin Joe ?
The line of thought is that those sent to such a convention would necessarily be conservatives. It is entirely possible that would not be the case. At that point attractive to the LIV liberal amendments could be added in. Once you open the door, you can't stop at just Conservatives, and the whole thing could be hijacked to produce very different results than we would hope for.
-
Let me put it this way, Fred. What about the Constitution would you change? The Constitution Party supports getting back to original intent. Most of the things people propose or would propose at an Article V convention are aimed at that goal. If you go there, and still feel the need to underscore the parts of the constitution that are being ignored today, it can be done with Amendments.
An Article V convention has its dangers, too.
Term limits and imposition on regulations and/or regulatory agencies.
And WTH. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Plus it would really point out how Marxist this country is.
-
The line of thought is that those sent to such a convention would necessarily be conservatives. It is entirely possible that would not be the case. At that point attractive to the LIV liberal amendments could be added in. Once you open the door, you can't stop at just Conservatives, and the whole thing could be hijacked to produce very different results than we would hope for.
Yes, but it still has to be passed by 3/4 of the states. Highly unlikely that 3/4 of the states would go for something LIV. I really think the risks are minimal and the rewards could be significant.
-
Term limits and imposition on regulations and/or regulatory agencies.
And WTH. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Plus it would really point out how Marxist this country is.
My first problem with an Article V Convention of States is that I don't think additional Constitutional Constraints will work with a Government which ignores the present ones.
Note, too, that though the Constitution Party Platform doesn't favor such, the Constitution still allows that form of relief, regardless. I'm sure neither the Republicans nor Democrats would favor one, either, but that doesn't stop citizens from seeking relief under Article V.
I think there is a lot in the Platform that is good, more than I have seen elsewhere, and no Party Platform can stop an Article V Convention if that is what the People want.
That said, I'm all for Term limits, but I don't think we'll get that through Congress. Can Term Limits be imposed on a Federal office from the State Legislatures? I'd like to see the ability of the People to petition to recall any Congressional office holder in their jurisdiction, too. Vote them out if they aren't doing the job.
IMHO, Federal regulations are commonly unconstitutional. It is a supreme cop-out for the Congress to task an agency with promulgating regulations which have the force of law, when the agency is part of the Executive Branch. It is in effect delegating a Legislative Branch function to an agency which, at most should be tasked with enforcing the regulations. The result is that we not only have more regulations, but they get to the point where without oversight, they become ridiculous. If they cover too many fine points for the Congress to handle, maybe we don't need them, especially at the Federal Level. How many of those agencies should exist at the Federal Level? Where and what is the Constitutional Authority for the Federal Government to regulate Education? for one example.
Part of the problem is that the Federal Government has grown far beyond the scope it should have, had it been kept contained to its original tasks, and the Constitution enumerated those duties--all else was to be the provenance of the State and Local Governments, or simply left alone.
What constraints would we be able to impose with an Article 5 convention of States that would be likely to pass? Where, specifically, would you impose those?
-
Yes, but it still has to be passed by 3/4 of the states. Highly unlikely that 3/4 of the states would go for something LIV. I really think the risks are minimal and the rewards could be significant.
I would note that while the Party Platform does not favor the idea for the reasons I have stated, that does not preclude proceeding with the drive to have an Article V convention.
After all, that relief is part of the Constitution. No one is proposing its removal, just questioning the wisdom of one given the level of education the average person has about how the Republic is supposed to function and what the Federal Government is supposed to do.
The caution is, and has been, that the results could vary greatly from intent, especially if the convention is hijacked. If 20-25% of voters supported Trump, and roughly 50% are liberal Democrats, the numbers could get ugly quick.
Regardless of that one issue which still remains a possibility despite any Party backing, what do you think of the rest of the Platform?
-
As you know, I'm a bit more cynical about Cruz's motives. Clutching at Trump-shaped straws on judges probably was among his reasons.
But I suspect he was also protecting his political viability: Basically, "would the party support me if I didn't vote for the party's nominee?" The answer being no -- and Cruz was almost certainly told as much behind closed doors -- he had to do what he did, grudgingly and with as little commitment or conviction as possible.
Cruz decided to honor his pledge when the head of the RNC, Reince Priebus, said that anyone that did not honor their pledge would receive no help from the RNC in any future election. That would have been a death sentence for Cruz in 2018. He still might get taken out in a primary, it mostly depends on who runs against him.
-
I see leadership skills are not among your finer qualities. You basically just said "Accept what you are given or else" which curiously is what destroyed the GOP as a political force.
You also adopted Obama's "I won" mentality. Pretty readily too, come to think of it.
What destroyed the GOP is Bush-ism. HW Bush and W. Bush are responsible for mess the GOP is today. Trump-ism is a repudiation of Bush-ism. Until Bush-ism is totally and completely repudiated by the republican party the republican party will lose nationally. And it deserves to lose nationally since Bush-ism places the goals of the elites; big government, big business, big banking and globalism ahead of the interests of the American people.
Candidate Trump is a return to a more traditional form of Republicanism. A little more socially liberal than I like but vastly superior to any form of neocon-ism.
I say candidate Trump instead of just Trump, because candidate Trump appears to be a very different person than businessman Trump. Businessman Trump operated in a liberal dominated world. He had to go along to get things done. I hope we are seeing the real Trump in candidate Trump. I know a lot of you do not trust Trump. Well maybe, but I do trust Hillary to do exactly what she says she'll do. So I'm with Trump.
-
I'm leaning towards he didn't actually "endorse" Trump
Get over it, Cruz endorsed Trump, deal with reality and not some fantasy world that does not exist.
-
I don't understand how he could do so after the filth that Trump threw at him and his family. That was as dirty a personal assault as I've EVER seen from a politician (and Trump IS a politician).
We need him in the Senate, and were I in Texas, I'd vote for him.
I see you are back in your fantasy world again.
For weeks before Trump reTweeted an unflattering picture of Mrs Cruz the Cruz campaign had been smearing Mrs Trump as morally unfit to be the first lady of the USA. Calling her a slut. Circulating old semi-nude pictures from her modeling days. Cruz started the wive wars when he allowed his campaign to attack Trumps wife Melania. It was despicable of Ted Cruz to do so. Below is a picture of Melania watching over Cruz's children and he repays her kindness by calling her a slut? FUTC.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/5II8zmE59sb1xmurZr6uug--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/33878147c6ebdc4f673c8f6257c4bcc5/tumblr_inline_o10ihrnFwY1rpqds5_1280.jpg)
-
Were I in Texas, I would too. I'm glad I'm not, though, because I feel betrayed by him on this matter.
Well I do live in Texas and if Cruz has a primary opponent I am very likely to vote for them in 2018. IMHO Cruz only cares about Cruz. He flip flopped on illegals, he flip flopped on TPP, he flip flopped on refugees and he he flip flopped on H1B visas. I do not trust Cruz at all. However if he is on the ballot in the general I will vote for him. As much as I dislike Cruz I won't give a senate seat to the Rats for 6 years. That would be almost as stupid as giving the Rats the presidency for 4 years.
-
For the last bleep time, you imbecile - RUBIO'S PAC did that! NOT CRUZ!
-
@r9etb
An ambitious Senator?! The horror
How many people without ambition or an unhealthy love over power ever seek to become a Senator?
We elected Cruz to represent us in the Senate, not to run for president IN HIS FIRST TERM. With in months of being elected Cruz was visiting Iowa. His entire "act" in the Senate was aimed at improving his chances of being the GOP nominee. He is just a little to ambitious and a little to untrustworthy for this Texan. I hope to be able to vote him out of the Senate in 2018.
-
You are making a mistake. We need Cruz in the Senate and we will need him in the next election. He did not betray anyone. And he did not endorse Trump. He said he was voting for the Republican candidate.
Bull Cruz reverses himself, endorses Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/23/cruz-to-reverse-himself-and-support-trump/)
"A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment.
Get over it Cruz endorsed Trump.
-
I have a really hard time understanding how the man with such a brilliant mind backed himself into a corner that a bunch of us deewbs on the internet knew enough to avoid and discussed at the time. To me it looks like he gambled big and lost.
Choices: Yup. thats why getting the corrupting idea of 'lesser evil' out of the mix is imperative before it results in this fiasco yet again.
LOL, The GOP baited a trap for Trump and Cruz fell into it. Perhaps Cruz is not as smart as everyone thinks he is. He's a good lawyer and that's about all he's good at.
-
For the last bleep time, you imbecile - RUBIO'S PAC did that! NOT CRUZ!
That is a lie.
-
Norm, on that we agree. I have a hard time understanding that, too, except that I think Cruz (and the rest of the field) underestimated the ability of Trump to ensnare the angry and underestimated Trump's willingness to go dirty long and hard through the primary campaign.
I honestly don't think any of those on the ticket were prepared for that rancor, but noticed a couple embraced it pretty early on. Not that I would have considered Christie, anyway, but Carson went way down in my estimation as soon as he toadied up to Trump. All history, now.
We need to start voting for the greater good. We won't get 100%, unless we are very, very lucky. Even so, I will vote for the candidate who best represents my beliefs and principles, above a threshold where I do not consider the % of good to be sufficient to merit my ballot. I think we all function that way, to some degree. I also think we have different thresholds. In Trump's case, the bar is just set too low.
Take a second and tell me how you select a candidate to support (or dump the field).
My methodology, simplified: (all in blue so you can skip it and read on if you choose)
I start with issues. If they don't align there, there's no point. I want 100% but will settle for 90% if the deal-breakers aren't areas of conflict.
Deal-breakers:
Abortion (must be pro life, or set to advance that cause),
Defense (Constitutional duty of the fedGov, including border security and controlling immigration, but not including 'nation building').
Gun Control (just say no, better yet, roll it back).
Global Warming/Climate Change: embrace that as any reason to form policy, lose my vote.
Taxes: Enough already, control spending, balance the budget, downsize all but the military.
Take adversarial positions on those issues and we aren't going to get along.
But the Republican Party demands only lip service to their platform, not adherence to the letter. When was the last time they kicked anyone out? So we are left with a useless label, not a matter of principle unless the candidate chooses to embrace principle. Which is why equating "Republican" with "conservative" has been an egregious mistake and either needs to stop, or Conservatives need to find a new label.
Part of the analysis has to include a credibility factor. Obviously if their stances on the issues don't match up, they get dropped from consideration, but the ones which align have to have a track record that supports those positions. Election year epiphanies don't hold water.
That will usually eliminate most of the rest, if they aren't already gone. Some years, they all are by then.
So that means we go back down the list for the last one on top and decide if we can, in good conscience, vote for them. Thus it has ever been, and ...
I have only cast a couple of ballots in wholehearted support of a candidate, ever, as I was locked into the false dichotomy of only two parties.
I have realized we need more choices, especially as the most likely people in terms of having principles which agree with my own, are going to be on another party ticket besides the Republicans and Democrats. I have found that the principles expressed in those third Party Platforms are more likely to be honest, although sometimes not entirely realistic or even a satire. There have not been the corrupting influences of the Uniparty to distort them, and if they didn't mean it, why bother? Credibility takes a jump there.
It doesn't take much more than time to go down the list of parties (some 70+) and eliminate most from consideration: too liberal, too single issue and not thought out, not serious, simple nutcase ideas, and ferret out those alternate parties which are serious and reasonably aligned. Of those I find one stood out for me.
Then opens a new world of parties squabbling for relevance, of hit pieces written by proponents of one of those parties against the candidate of another, and to some degree, the same sort of fish fighting for who will be the biggest in that smaller pond. Surely, if one is looking for a party to build up for the future, nothing to ignore. The basics apply: if you are taking flack, you're over the target, always find out about the writer of the hit piece and see what they are promoting (usually a competing party), and just because they might be more honest about their beliefs doesn't mean they won't pull dirty tricks to win. (Cody Quirk's hit pieces aimed at Castle, for instance {Quirk is a Libertarian}) But the race to 15% is on in third party circles, and the battle is hard fought for votes.
I would have liked to see a debate among the top three or four 'third' party candidates, just to get their take on the issues, and to see those parties get exposure, to provide that principled alternative for voters. But the MSM won't back that, the big two sure won't, and short of a stellar ballot performance it won't happen. Even now, only the Greens and the Libertarians get mention (another republicrat pair off), and the Constitution Party seldom gets mention. I support the Constitution Party Platform, for the most part, and will vote to bring that into the limelight.
Winning depends on the objective, frankly. If the objective is to gain exposure, bring the Party into the debate, and that is accomplished, I consider that a 'win', this time. I don't expect Castle and Bradley to win the election, but would like to see the Party rise from the obscurity the others languish in. Eventually, short of getting a place in the main debates, whichever of the smaller Parties could win enough EV to force the House to decide might have a shot at altering the political landscape, especially if the House vote is so finely split that one Party might be convinced to vote to deny the other the Presidency by voting for the Third Party candidate. Pipe dreams, I know.
I'd settle for Reagan's 80%. Your list of deal breakers is pretty much mine. Contrary to what a lot of people think, I'm far from a purist. The problem is that most GOP idiots arent even close to 80% before you even consider the fringe issues. I don't go by pure voting record. After the no go issues, I go more by what these people do behind the scenes. John McCain looks generally conservative on paper most years. Especially election years. But he spends his free time torpedoing any conservative within 49 states of Nebraska, AKA, all of them. Rubio willingly got on board with Chuck Schumer but looks good on pure numbers.
But if someone lies to my face I don't care if they are 100% otherwise. From that point forward they are no more trustworthy than Nancy Pelosi. And Ted royally screwed the pooch in the worst possible way at the worst possible time. We cannot honestly say now that Mr. Principled conservative won't sell out again.WE don't know. But we DO know he did it before. And did massive damage when he did. John McCain would be proud. Probably is.
There is no point playing dress up and telling ourselves nice stories. If we can't get someone worth a damn elected, I feel no obligation to slit my own throat just to be at the cool kids table. The entire POINT off America was not one big exercise in go along/get along. It was for every man and woman to be free to act on their beliefs, not return to an Americanized version of the monarchy.
So if we can't get our act together, nature will sort it out for us. We will devolve into Europe more than we have already and the S will HTF.
-
For the last bleep time, you imbecile - RUBIO'S PAC did that! NOT CRUZ!
It's strange how easy Trump supporters take to lies but refuse the truth. It's as if they wish to be deluded.
This is the echo chamber in effect, where a person believes only the information that reinforces their beliefs. It was what the rest of America saw of the GOP in 2012 when we believed Romney was going to win.
After that debacle, I swore to look at reporting from the right, left, and middle and see if they matched. And if not, find out why. In this election, I'm finding that the most egregious offenders are on the right, notably Breitbart and the fly-by-night "no reputation" "news" sites. In fact, Russian government-owned "news" sites are taken as gospel by Trump supporter and by extension, the GOP.
It's as if every claim made by Trump and his suppoters are a projection of what they, themselves, do and believe.
It's beyond sickening.
-
It's strange how easy Trump supporters take to lies but refuse the truth. It's as if they wish to be deluded.
I wish I could say I've stopped being surprised, but nope. They still manage to surprise me with it.
I think it's fairly simple though:
Trump said it was so (in this case Cruz started it) and they have to believe it because all they have is the sad little hope he'll keep his word. Despite the evidence that he NEVER does.
For the record: Liz Mair. Ran a pro-Rubio PAC. Put out the ad hitting Melania. She admitted it. Google it.
Jack all to do with Cruz.
-
That is a lie.
Now, that's some bizarre thinking there.
-
Now, that's some bizarre thinking there.
More like brainwashed.....
It's a straightforward truth that the deluded refuse to accept.
But you're right......... it's bizarre too.
-
@EC
@HonestJohn
For the last bleep time, you imbecile - RUBIO'S PAC did that! NOT CRUZ!
It's strange how easy Trump supporters take to lies but refuse the truth.
Go to 4 minute mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALErcfr7jQ0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALErcfr7jQ0)
Texas Lobbyist and Ted Cruz Operative Admits Origin of Campaign To Attack Donald Trump’s Wife (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/25/texas-lobbyist-and-ted-cruz-operative-admits-origin-of-campaign-to-attack-donald-trumps-wife/)
-
Well, hell, why didn't you say so? If Conservative Treehouse says it's true it's gotta be true!
-
Well, hell, why didn't you say so? If Conservative Treehouse says it's true it's gotta be true!
@Sanguine
There is a video. Is the video of a Cruz campaign staff attacking Mrs Trump a lie too?
-
More like brainwashed.....
It's a straightforward truth that the deluded refuse to accept.
But you're right......... it's bizarre too.
Standard issue liberal.
-
@jpsb
FUTC.
You know, speaking for myself, I'd be really happy to never see another stale, lame Freeperism (moose, cheese, sister, all that crap) brought over here. That goes double for Jim Robinson's moronic "FUwhomever." We don't need to be aping him.
-
@jpsb, did you actually listen to the video? It’s about a CNN story that both campaigns responded to. The Cruz spokeswoman did mention Melania’s naked pics, which I think is stupid and a bit beside the point. Now, how you spin that to be “the origin of the attack” is just shameful. You know where the attack originated and you go and find a video of talking head discussing the attack as “proof” of the origination of the attack. You’re making my head hurt with all the machinations. You’re not a “campaign operative” by any chance, are you?
-
Since I am not one for many words I will refer you to this article.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi47_uLxO7PAhVNz2MKHbJODBwQFghCMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnsnews.com%2Fnews%2Farticle%2Fmark-levin-states-should-call-convention-propose-amending-constitution&usg=AFQjCNFf4G4KQcMEsKJNJBeqlMkRCqBikw&sig2=OAAQsZJsUmgVn61115x16w (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi47_uLxO7PAhVNz2MKHbJODBwQFghCMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnsnews.com%2Fnews%2Farticle%2Fmark-levin-states-should-call-convention-propose-amending-constitution&usg=AFQjCNFf4G4KQcMEsKJNJBeqlMkRCqBikw&sig2=OAAQsZJsUmgVn61115x16w)
A proposed Amendment for term limits for Congress and SCOTUS at the Fed level for homogeneity across all 57 states.
A proposed Amendment reining in Fed overreach and giving ALL land back to the states with maybe the exception of National Parks/Monuments.
I want to see if there are enough level headed people left in this country to get together and put together a reasonable package to show the fed gov it is really all about WE The People and not the unholy monster Fed Gov.
-
@jpsb, did you actually listen to the video? It’s about a CNN story that both campaigns responded to. The Cruz spokeswoman did mention Melania’s naked pics, which I think is stupid and a bit beside the point. Now, how you spin that to be “the origin of the attack” is just shameful. You know where the attack originated and you go and find a video of talking head discussing the attack as “proof” of the origination of the attack. You’re making my head hurt with all the machinations. You’re not a “campaign operative” by any chance, are you?
If he is an "operative" he's sure not earning his pay.
I think the goal of trolls is to get people to vote for their guy, not make everyone repulsed by how boneheaded and dishonest you are, so they run even farther from your guy......
-
@jpsb
You know, speaking for myself, I'd be really happy to never see another stale, lame Freeperism (moose, cheese, sister, all that crap) brought over here. That goes double for Jim Robinson's moronic "FUwhomever." We don't need to be aping him.
It's a sign of a lack of intellect and an even greater lack of vocabulary.
And you're right....... it doesn't belong here where people actually use words and THINK.
-
@jpsb, did you actually listen to the video? It’s about a CNN story that both campaigns responded to. The Cruz spokeswoman did mention Melania’s naked pics, which I think is stupid and a bit beside the point. Now, how you spin that to be “the origin of the attack” is just shameful. You know where the attack originated and you go and find a video of talking head discussing the attack as “proof” of the origination of the attack. You’re making my head hurt with all the machinations. You’re not a “campaign operative” by any chance, are you?
@Sanguine
"we should be looking at the first lady candidates, instead of just talking about the men"
“If Donald trump is elected, Mrs. Trump will be the first first lady that has ever posed nude; the first first lady that’s the third wife [of the president]; and the first foreign-born first lady in this century.” She said, “by contrast,” Cruz’s wife Heidi would be “the first pro-life first lady.”
"You've been covering Nancy Reagan, look at what an influencer she was to her husband. … I think posing nude speaks to character," she said.
Was that an attack on Meleana Trump by the Cruz campaign or not? Did that Cruz spokes person imply that Mrs Trump was unfit to be first lady or not?
FYI the attacks on Mrs Trump by team Cruz only got worse after this first one.
The lengths Cruzers go to distort the truth is amazing. Trump at this point had not said one word about Heidi Cruz. However after weeks of team Cruz attacking Mrs Trump he did fire back with an, OMG, a retweet of an unflattering picture of Mrs Cruz. Oh the horror. Ted Cruz better hope that I have forgotten about this when he up for reelection in 2018.
-
If he is an "operative" he's sure not earning his pay.
I think the goal of trolls is to get people to vote for their guy, not make everyone repulsed by how boneheaded and dishonest you are, so they run even farther from your guy......
That's a good point, but then, this is an unusual election in many ways.
-
@Sanguine
"we should be looking at the first lady candidates, instead of just talking about the men"
“If Donald trump is elected, Mrs. Trump will be the first first lady that has ever posed nude; the first first lady that’s the third wife [of the president]; and the first foreign-born first lady in this century.” She said, “by contrast,” Cruz’s wife Heidi would be “the first pro-life first lady.”
"You've been covering Nancy Reagan, look at what an influencer she was to her husband. … I think posing nude speaks to character," she said.
Was that an attack on Meleana Trump by the Cruz campaign or not? Did that Cruz spokes person imply that Mrs Trump was unfit to be first lady or not?
FYI the attacks on Mrs Trump by team Cruz only got worse after this first one.
The lengths Cruzers go to distort the truth is amazing. Trump at this point had not said one word about Heidi Cruz. However after weeks of team Cruz attacking Mrs Trump he did fire back with an, OMG, a retweet of an unflattering picture of Mrs Cruz. Oh the horror. Ted Cruz better hope that I have forgotten about this when he up for reelection in 2018.
Sorry, but you've already discredited yourself. Doubling down won't help. To paraphrase the old saying: "first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole, is to quit digging".
-
If he is an "operative" he's sure not earning his pay.
I think the goal of trolls is to get people to vote for their guy, not make everyone repulsed by how boneheaded and dishonest you are, so they run even farther from your guy......
You are NeverTrump, so why should I waste my time trying to convince you? I like like to inject a little truth into the conversation from time to time. I'm tried of hearing the half truth about Trump attacking Heidi Cruz. Yeah he did, but he did so to DEFEND his wife who was being viciously attacked by team Cruz.
And you know why we know it was Cruz and not Rubio? Because the attacks stopped after Trump put Heidi on the hot seat.
-
Sorry, but you've already discredited yourself. Doubling down won't help. To paraphrase the old saying: "first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole, is to quit digging".
Nice dodge, you can't address the FACTS so you dodge and weave. Typical Cruzer, which by the way is why Cruz lost. No one believed a word out of his mouth once they got to know him.
-
That's a good point, but then, this is an unusual election in many ways.
That's for sure.
But when the pro-Trump forces seem to be doing everything they can to make people turn away from their candidate, it seems a bit more than "unusual," doesn't it?
I swear these people want everyone on the fence to vote third party, write in a candidate or leave the top space blank.
They can't seriously thing that lying and bullying is going to convince any thinking person to vote for their repulsive candidate.
Can they???
-
Nice dodge, you can't address the FACTS so you dodge and weave. Typical Cruzer, which be the way is why Cruz lost. No one believed a word out of his mouth once they got to know him.
Now, @jpsb, if you had actually wanted to prove your point you would have found good sources that actually made your point. Instead you produce dodgy "evidence" and then when it is rejected, accuse me of "dodging and weaving". Whew! Does it make you dizzy to produce all of this stuff?
-
If he is an "operative" he's sure not earning his pay.
I think the goal of trolls is to get people to vote for their guy, not make everyone repulsed by how boneheaded and dishonest you are, so they run even farther from your guy......
This tiny little web site, to which I have been banished, will not swing very many votes. So here I am free to just tell it like it is. It's kind of liberating posting here. I had to be entirely to PC at TOS. TOS is very big on group think. One had to pay careful attention to which way the wind was blowing that day because management there was prone to rapid and radical changes in thinking. Here not so much. But I do miss posting to thousands of readers. Oh Well.
-
This tiny little web site, to which I have been banished,
So it's a martyr thing.
-
Now, @jpsb, if you had actually wanted to prove your point you would have found good sources that actually made your point. Instead you produce dodgy "evidence" and then when it is rejected, accuse me of "dodging and weaving". Whew! Does it make you dizzy to produce all of this stuff?
Still dodging huh, I will leave it up to the reader to decide who is posting facts, documenting those facts and who is BSing.
-
So it's a martyr thing.
It's not a martyr thing, it's a fact, you're the one into martyr-ism not me. If I were allowed to post uncensored at FR I would, and here too.
-
This tiny little web site, to which I have been banished, will not swing very many votes. So here I am free to just tell it like it is. It's kind of liberating posting here. I had to be entirely to PC at TOS. TOS is very big on group think. One had to pay careful attention to which way the wind was blowing that day because management there was prone to rapid and radical changes in thinking. Here not so much. But I do miss posting to thousands of readers. Oh Well.
Wow, I feel for you, dude. Banished to have to hang out with the likes of us! Oh, the tragedy.
-
jpsb.........I have been banished from Lucianne for being anti trump. I consider it a badge of honor and am glad not to be associated with them. I stand with Jonah, Beck, and some others who have had the courage to stand up to the brown shirts and said NO to trump.
-
Wow, I feel for you, dude. Banished to have to hang out with the likes of us! Oh, the tragedy.
I'll survive. The user interface here could use some work. A search function would be nice and a longer list of "current" threads would be nice. But it's usable.
-
jpsb.........I have been banished from Lucianne for being anti trump. I consider it a badge of honor and am glad not to be associated with them. I stand with Jonah, Beck, and some others who have had the courage to stand up to the brown shirts and said NO to trump.
So Lucianne is pro-Trump and Jonah is anti.... ?
-
jpsb.........I have been banished from Lucianne for being anti trump. I consider it a badge of honor and am glad not to be associated with them. I stand with Jonah, Beck, and some others who have had the courage to stand up to the brown shirts and said NO to trump.
I still have an account from the 90s at Lucianne. I haven't been there in years, I might go have a look but as I recall Lucianne was very pro Bush and I am not at all fond of the Bushes. Having to take on NeverTrumpers each AM makes me sharper so I am kindof enjoying it here. Wheres the fun in agreeing with everyone all the time?
-
It's not a martyr thing, it's a fact, you're the one into martyr-ism not me. If I were allowed to post uncensored at FR I would, and here too.
It's a fact you show a martyr complex. But you failed Donald. You were disloyal. I can see why you'd try playing the victim to return to his good graces. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and Donald loves flattery.
-
Still dodging huh, I will leave it up to the reader to decide who is posting facts, documenting those facts and who is BSing.
I like having people around who voice an opinion so different from my own. Without fear of management blasting them off. FWIW I always saw Cruz as a grandstander.
Anyways I find some humor in Trump as a POTUS candidate. He is pretty amorphous. I'm not really a #nevertrump person. If I think none of the candidates deserve my vote they don't get it. Simple as that.
-
@Sanguine
"we should be looking at the first lady candidates, instead of just talking about the men"
“If Donald trump is elected, Mrs. Trump will be the first first lady that has ever posed nude; the first first lady that’s the third wife [of the president]; and the first foreign-born first lady in this century.” She said, “by contrast,” Cruz’s wife Heidi would be “the first pro-life first lady.”
"You've been covering Nancy Reagan, look at what an influencer she was to her husband. … I think posing nude speaks to character," she said.
Was that an attack on Meleana Trump by the Cruz campaign or not? Did that Cruz spokes person imply that Mrs Trump was unfit to be first lady or not?
FYI the attacks on Mrs Trump by team Cruz only got worse after this first one.
The lengths Cruzers go to distort the truth is amazing. Trump at this point had not said one word about Heidi Cruz. However after weeks of team Cruz attacking Mrs Trump he did fire back with an, OMG, a retweet of an unflattering picture of Mrs Cruz. Oh the horror. Ted Cruz better hope that I have forgotten about this when he up for reelection in 2018.
****cute kitty
-
I still have an account from the 90s at Lucianne. I haven't been there in years, I might go have a look but as I recall Lucianne was very pro Bush and I am not at all fond of the Bushes. Having to take on NeverTrumpers each AM makes me sharper so I am kindof enjoying it here. Wheres the fun in agreeing with everyone all the time?
Considering your basic schtick is to tell all of us who don't support either Liberal to just shut up and get on the Trump train...when you're not accusing us of being Hillary supporters...that last line from you is pathetically hysterical.
-
We had 17 candidates this time around. Many were quite good.
The problem isn't the party, per se, but the primary voters that *CHOOSE* the worst candidate of the bunch.
A fundamental problem is the system by which the party selects the candidate.
Open primaries are ridiculous. Perhaps we'll see that closed off in some states.
But The Party won't change FPTP voting, as it helps the Establishment candidates and hurts conservative challengers (and who knows whether Americans are bright enough for anything else!).
-
Considering your basic schtick is to tell all of us who don't support either Liberal to just shut up and get on the Trump train...when you're not accusing us of being Hillary supporters...that last line from you is pathetically hysterical.
You are entitled to your opinion, I just think you're stupid and I've not told anyone here to shut up.
-
This tiny little web site, to which I have been banished, will not swing very many votes. So here I am free to just tell it like it is. It's kind of liberating posting here. I had to be entirely to PC at TOS. TOS is very big on group think. One had to pay careful attention to which way the wind was blowing that day because management there was prone to rapid and radical changes in thinking. Here not so much. But I do miss posting to thousands of readers. Oh Well.
@jpsb
That's kind of an odd thing to say. I've never given a though to the size of my "audience', nor even considered it such, no matter where I post.
You ought to be informed about the relative sizes of the two forums, though. It's true that TOS is larger. However, since the early part of the year TBR has received about 500 new members from FR (and if that figure is wrong, someone please correct me).
The traffic and the posting at FR is way down; Jim and company are living in the past, when the site had a bit of actual influence and status. Now, it's known all over the internet as a joke, a fringe kook gathering. Also, I've been told that in local political circles, anyone who mentions FR gets laughed at.
That's to be expected when you have members saying the Trump News Network will be even better than Infowars.
-
If we are cheap moralizers what is the alt/right that promotes the madman, Trump.
-
@jpsb
That's kind of an odd thing to say. I've never given a though to the size of my "audience', nor even considered it such, no matter where I post.
You ought to be informed about the relative sizes of the two forums, though. It's true that TOS is larger. However, since the early part of the year TBR has received about 500 new members from FR (and if that figure is wrong, someone please correct me).
The traffic and the posting at FR is way down; Jim and company are living in the past, when the site had a bit of actual influence and status. Now, it's known all over the internet as a joke, a fringe kook gathering. Also, I've been told that in local political circles, anyone who mentions FR gets laughed at.
That's to be expected when you have members saying the Trump News Network will be even better than Infowars.
Thanks to the good grace of Myst and her fellow collaborators and the highly insightful people that reside here (@jpsb, excluded), I have found a Home and feel really blessed, regardless of audience, It's Quality, not quantity!
-
A fundamental problem is the system by which the party selects the candidate.
Open primaries are ridiculous. Perhaps we'll see that closed off in some states.
But The Party won't change FPTP voting, as it helps the Establishment candidates and hurts conservative challengers (and who knows whether Americans are bright enough for anything else!).
I agree, but it's obviously what the GOP leaders want. They apparently think it is to their benefit to have open, manipulable primaries.
-
You are entitled to your opinion, I just think your stupid and I've not told anyone here to shut up.
Your stupid what?
-
Your stupid what?
oh pick me pick me your stupid you are did i win what did i win i hope i won the internets
-
oh pick me pick me your stupid you are did i win what did i win i hope i won the internets
You did! Send me your address and I'll have it delivered.
-
oh pick me pick me your stupid you are did i win what did i win i hope i won the internets
He's flailing in depression because he was disloyal to Donald. He failed to bring us to heel. I expect his outbursts will intensify. He needs to atone and he can't do it. Donald has disapproved of his failure but he seeks to reunite with the holy light from Trump tower.
Next he'll call us doodoo heads in the vain hope Donald will see his post and forgive him.
-
You did! Send me your address and I'll have it delivered.
bighead @shelleyidaho I can send a runner. But a nice present in the mail would be good. Cause about all I get in the mail are Bills. No Toms. No Harrys. A few Dicks but I think those are close friends with all the Bills.
-
Thanks to the good grace of Myst and her fellow collaborators and the highly insightful people that reside here (@jpsb, excluded), I have found a Home and feel really blessed, regardless of audience, It's Quality, not quantity!
Dittos!
-
I agree, but it's obviously what the GOP leaders want. They apparently think it is to their benefit to have open, manipulable primaries.
And thanks to Donald Trump, the GOP Establishment now has even more power to ensure that continues.
The whole reason for Colorado not holding a straw poll primary was to stand up to and fight against the RNC. And Trump took the RNC's side even while his supporters incessantly lied about him fighting against the GOP-E.
-
I just think your stupid
Classic.
-
He's flailing in depression because he was disloyal to Donald. He failed to bring us to heel. I expect his outbursts will intensify. He needs to atone and he can't do it. Donald has disapproved of his failure but he seeks to reunite with the holy light from Trump tower.
Next he'll call us doodoo heads in the vain hope Donald will see his post and forgive him.
You are cracking me up! Thanx, I needed a laugh.
-
Classic.
Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc
-
Wow, I feel for you, dude. Banished to have to hang out with the likes of us! Oh, the tragedy.
Yes, me, too. I am crying as I type. However, that huge, influential website that he left is getting smaller and less influential by the minute.
Not that many posts at TOS now.
Nothing negative about 'trump can be permitted so a lot of general posts with 5 to 20 responses.
Even the live appearance of the OG threads are now about 25 long, compared to a thousand or more in the past.
It's over, over there.
-
Go to 4 minute mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALErcfr7jQ0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALErcfr7jQ0)
Texas Lobbyist and Ted Cruz Operative Admits Origin of Campaign To Attack Donald Trump’s Wife (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/25/texas-lobbyist-and-ted-cruz-operative-admits-origin-of-campaign-to-attack-donald-trumps-wife/)
Your source is known liar Sundance at the nuthouse and a Youtube video?
-
Your source is known liar Sundance at the nuthouse and a Youtube video?
Seventeen more days until election day, and Trump supporters are still attacking Ted Cruz.
-
You are cracking me up! Thanx, I needed a laugh.
Well...
* We know Donald believes people who fail him are being disloyal.
* We know Donald gets disappointed any time his desires are not fulfilled 100%
*We know that his true believers think that before the sun rises, Donald has to give it permission.
*We know they have literally composed and posted prayers to him, created memes with him as Jesus, Washington, and a host of other revered and worshipped figures.
So it is only logical to conclude that because his cultists here failed him so thoroughly in bringing us under the will of Landru II, that Donald must in fact be disappointed in them. Thus disloyal. Because he has made no secret of his view of failure.
Since Donald is disappointed in their disloyalty, it stands to reason they will attempt to 'return to his holy light' by increasing their attacks on us.
Since we ALSO know that his cult mimics him by parroting his mannerisms and words "crooked Hillary/Lying Ted etc., they will continue to do so.
Thus 'doodoo head', because a child's intelligence level is all he can really muster.
Yea, it is funny. But PATHETIC funny as well because in making a joke about it, it's really disgusting to realize that the above really isn't a complete fabrication. Their actions show they really think that way.
-
Seventeen more days until election day, and Trump supporters are still attacking Ted Cruz.
Shows you who their enemies are.
CONSERVATIVES. NOT Democrats.
And they don't even hide it..... **nononono*
-
You are cracking me up! Thanx, I needed a laugh.
Yes, I love it when @Norm Lenhart gets on a roll!
-
Candidate Trump is a return to a more traditional form of Republicanism. A little more socially liberal than I like but vastly superior to any form of neocon-ism.
Only in the suspend Habeas Corpus, place a state legislature under house arrest, invade that State with alien armies, and burn and loot half a dozen states into submission sort of way.
The result of that was that half the country voted Democrat for a hundred years.
-
I see you are back in your fantasy world again.
For weeks before Trump reTweeted an unflattering picture of Mrs Cruz the Cruz campaign had been smearing Mrs Trump as morally unfit to be the first lady of the USA. Calling her a slut. Circulating old semi-nude pictures from her modeling days. Cruz started the wive wars when he allowed his campaign to attack Trumps wife Melania. It was despicable of Ted Cruz to do so. Below is a picture of Melania watching over Cruz's children and he repays her kindness by calling her a slut? FUTC.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/5II8zmE59sb1xmurZr6uug--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://40.media.tumblr.com/33878147c6ebdc4f673c8f6257c4bcc5/tumblr_inline_o10ihrnFwY1rpqds5_1280.jpg)
Google Liz Mair's Make America Awesome PAC. The picture of Mrs Trump used came from a GQ photo shoot and was used as a Magazine cover image in Europe.
The image not only wasn't connected to Cruz except by the most ridiculous tinfoil hat means, but was claimed by the Make America Awesome PAC, who were pro-Rubio and definitely anti-Trump.
Nor was the image produced or obtained by surreptitious means: It was a model-released image for which Mrs Trump had been compensated. To deflect the fact that the image even existed, Trump declared war on the people closest to him in the race. Only one little problem.
Ted, and especially Heidi Cruz had nothing to do with the ad.
Trump attacked the wrong people, when he found out the truth he lied to justify the attack, and proceeded to keep attacking the wrong people. (and lying about it).
If I hadn't thought Trump unfit to command strategic forces prior to that, I damned sure KNEW he was unfit to command strategic forces after that incident.
If you anti-Bushites think "W' attacked the wrong people after 9/11 in Iraq, you're backing the same basic principle when Trump does it during a campaign. That speaks volumes about your character, too.
-
That is a lie.
Nope. Liz Mair's PAC admitted running the ad, in fact early versions had the little attribution line at the bottom, conspicuously scrubbed off the ad by the time Trump was attacking Cruz with it.
Cruz had said "That's not one of ours." in reference to the ad, and the Trumpettes on TOS were blaring that Cruz hadn't disavowed it enough(WTF?). Which led to an ongoing question of just what was needed to be 'enough' disavowal? Fireworks displays? Halftime shows? What, exactly could disavow something more than saying you had nothing to do with it?
-
Nope. Liz Mair's PAC admitted running the ad, in fact early versions had the little attribution line at the bottom, conspicuously scrubbed off the ad by the time Trump was attacking Cruz with it.
Cruz had said "That's not one of ours." in reference to the ad, and the Trumpettes on TOS were blaring that Cruz hadn't disavowed it enough(WTF?). Which led to an ongoing question of just what was needed to be 'enough' disavowal? Fireworks displays? Halftime shows? What, exactly could disavow something more than saying you had nothing to do with it?
jpsb is a pure 110% Trump drone. No thought...no speaking his own words...just repeat whatever he's told to by the Trump campaign even when it's been throughly debunked and proven false.
You'll do better to and have more cognitive reactions from your family pet talking about this stuff than you will with a Trump drone.
-
jpsb is a pure 110% Trump drone. No thought...no speaking his own words...just repeat whatever he's told to by the Trump campaign even when it's been throughly debunked and proven false.
You'll do better to and have more cognitive reactions from your family pet talking about this stuff than you will with a Trump drone.
I would, but my family pet might become incontinent for the first time since he was three days in the house. **nononono* I don't want to subject a good dog to such trauma.
-
Of course DT blamed Cruz for the pic of mulaneea..........same reason he said Dr. Carson was a pedophile.
He himself stated he made the charge because Dr. Carson was beating him in New Hampshire.
DT knew Cruz was his most potent opponent. Out came the madness. nd the msm was only too happy to broadcast the charges against Raphael Cruz.......for being somehow involved with the JFK assassination.
And now we have the candidate trashing the media. Hah.
-
Of course DT blamed Cruz for the pic of mulaneea..........same reason he said Dr. Carson was a pedophile.
He himself stated he made the charge because Dr. Carson was beating him in New Hampshire.
DT knew Cruz was his most potent opponent. Out came the madness. nd the msm was only too happy to broadcast the charges against Raphael Cruz.......for being somehow involved with the JFK assassination.
And now we have the candidate trashing the media. Hah.
What gets me about that whole dust-up, even beyond the who hit who of it, is that the pictures existed in the first place. The whole finger-pointing episode only draws attention from the fact that she was posing in the nude for money before all this came about.
Otherwise, there wouldn't have been images to have fits about.
That little issue gets kicked to the sidelines in the ensuing attacks on people who didn't deserve it.
They wouldn't just be selling hot dogs around the Mall...
(Psssst! Hey buddy! Have any naked pictures of the First Lady? Wanna buy some???)
-
What gets me about that whole dust-up, even beyond the who hit who of it, is that the pictures existed in the first place. The whole finger-pointing episode only draws attention from the fact that she was posing in the nude for money before all this came about.
Otherwise, there wouldn't have been images to have fits about.
That little issue gets kicked to the sidelines in the ensuing attacks on people who didn't deserve it.
They wouldn't just be selling hot dogs around the Mall...
(Psssst! Hey buddy! Have any naked pictures of the First Lady? Wanna buy some???)
Yea but look at the bright side. If people gave it too much scrutiny, they'd realize the entire modeling industry is filled with pedos and homosexuals and Donald was real big on advancing his daughter's modeling career. Which in the fashion modeling industry means that she spent a lot of time naked around adults, both male and female, as a part of the job. Not doing porn or anything of the sort. Just doing the legit job of a fashion model.
They don't have individual changing rooms. Models walk the runway, they get backstage, clothes fly off, new clothes fly on ASAP and back on the runway they go.
So who thinks that every male leaves the backstage area when most of the designers etc are gay men?
-
Was that an attack on Meleana Trump by the Cruz campaign or not?
From the front page of the Daily Mail on August 19, 2015 - 215 days before Donald Trump would fake outrage to falsely accuse Ted Cruz:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3201088/Melania-Trump-Lady-pose-NUDE-talk-incredible-sex-life-Donald-Howard-Stern-rival-Jackie-Kennedy-elegance-style-quiet-strength.html
Donald Trump is a pathological liar, and so are his supporters.
-
The whole finger-pointing episode only draws attention from the fact that she was posing in the nude for money before all this came about.
Posing nude for money, and using Trump's plane as a backdrop.
-
From the front page of the Daily Mail on August 19, 2015 - 215 days before Donald Trump would fake outrage to falsely accuse Ted Cruz:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3201088/Melania-Trump-Lady-pose-NUDE-talk-incredible-sex-life-Donald-Howard-Stern-rival-Jackie-Kennedy-elegance-style-quiet-strength.html
Donald Trump is a pathological liar, and so are his supporters.
Read the fine print at the bottom of the original ad and you tell me.
(http://images.mic.com/w4pcnymt2jjy9eueguxsbddnvfkcmj4jwitx6zyxmxpees6udeen48gfumufezxp.jpg)
NOT from Cruz. That attribution has to be present on any legal political ad.
Posted as a link and not an image on purpose to keep from offending those who might be offended. The truth, however, is right there along the bottom of the image.
Liz Mair's PAC was not tied to the Cruz camp, but was definitely anti-Trump.
The story is here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/24/creator-of-anti-trump-ad-featuring-melania-goes-on-twitter-tirade-against-the-billionaire/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/24/creator-of-anti-trump-ad-featuring-melania-goes-on-twitter-tirade-against-the-billionaire/)
Edited to post the image and not just the link, because some horses just won't be led to water.
The image the Trump camp posted conveniently didn't have the attribution text, which tells me they could either remove that, or they had the image and just added everything but the attribution text and then palmed that off as the ad, without attribution (which would have been illegal if it was used as a political ad), in order to keep the anti-Cruz attack going and justify continuing to viciously attack Heidi Cruz.
-
jpsb is a pure 110% Trump drone. No thought...no speaking his own words...just repeat whatever he's told to by the Trump campaign even when it's been throughly debunked and proven false.
You'll do better to and have more cognitive reactions from your family pet talking about this stuff than you will with a Trump drone.
throughly debunked?
Beginning at the 3:58 you will see a Cruz staffer attack Mrs Trump and call her unfit to be First Lady. Debunk that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALErcfr7jQ0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALErcfr7jQ0)
-
From the front page of the Daily Mail on August 19, 2015 - 215 days before Donald Trump would fake outrage to falsely accuse Ted Cruz:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3201088/Melania-Trump-Lady-pose-NUDE-talk-incredible-sex-life-Donald-Howard-Stern-rival-Jackie-Kennedy-elegance-style-quiet-strength.html
Donald Trump is a pathological liar, and so are his supporters.
Yes ignore the hard evidence right in front of your nose. Typical Cruzer.
-
Read the fine print at the bottom of the original ad and you tell me.
(http://images.mic.com/w4pcnymt2jjy9eueguxsbddnvfkcmj4jwitx6zyxmxpees6udeen48gfumufezxp.jpg)
NOT from Cruz. That attribution has to be present on any legal political ad.
Posted as a link and not an image on purpose to keep from offending those who might be offended. The truth, however, is right there along the bottom of the image.
Liz Mair's PAC was not tied to the Cruz camp, but was definitely anti-Trump.
The story is here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/24/creator-of-anti-trump-ad-featuring-melania-goes-on-twitter-tirade-against-the-billionaire/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/24/creator-of-anti-trump-ad-featuring-melania-goes-on-twitter-tirade-against-the-billionaire/)
Edited to post the image and not just the link, because some horses just won't be led to water.
Yeah Cruz hiding behind a Super Pac, typical. Trump had no super Pacs. He had balls enough to be his own man unlike Lyin Ted.
-
Yes ignore the hard evidence right in front of your nose. Typical Cruzer.
Post 679, this thread. GO ahead, and ignore that.
-
Post 679, this thread. GO ahead, and ignore that.
Another one that continues to ignore the hard evidence right under his nose. I've already dealt with Cruz supporter Liz Mair.
-
Another one that continues to ignore the hard evidence right under his nose. I've already dealt with Cruz supporter Liz Mair.
I get it. You are down, body and soul for the orange glorious. Either you are well paid, or clinically deluded. Good luck, pal, you're going to need it.
-
Yeah Cruz hiding behind a Super Pac, typical. Trump had no super Pacs. He had balls enough to be his own man unlike Lyin Ted.
It came from a pro RUBIO Super PAC you obtuse dolt.
Talking about ignoring the evidence right in front of your nose.
Thanks for proving my point about being a Trump drone.
-
Yes ignore the hard evidence right in front of your nose. Typical Cruzer.
So where is this hard evidence linking the Ted Cruz campaign with Make America Awesome?
-
@Smokin Joe @jpsb @Norm Lenhart
I have been giving this idea of "cheap moralizing" some thought. I've been trying to find some historic parallels.
If a man is fortunate he will, before he dies, gather up as much as he can of his civilized heritage and transmit it to his children. And to his final breath he will be grateful for this inexhaustible legacy, knowing that it is our nourishing mother and our lasting life.
Will and Ariel Durant
Now you can argue the "cheap moralizing" of the "greatest generation" brought about the rise of the beat generation.
---It never meant juvenile delinquents, it meant characters of a special spirituality who didn't gang up but were solitary Bartlebies staring out the dead wall window of our civilization--the subterraneans heroes who'd finally turned from the 'freedom' machine of the West and were taking drugs, digging bop, having flashes of insight, experiencing the 'derangement of the senses,' talking strange, being poor and glad, prophesying a new style for American culture, a new style (we thought), a new incantation-"
The beat generation that died a necessary death finding their new "freedom" could not last without standing on the shoulders of the "cheap moralizing" constaints that true freedom imposes.
And on through the counter-culture of the sixties to more recent history.
One can suppose that "Better that people teach their children tools for thinking and a habit of thinking for themselves rather than copy the ways of their parent's generation."
That is a great idea. But where do they find their own new answers? What philosophical base do they employ?
In the current situation of Trump vs. NeverTrump this accusation of "cheap moralizing" on the part of the NeverTrumps is in fact completely the opposite. It is a finely honed philosophy based on knowledge and principles derived exactly from people who neither sought favor or fame but as, in the words of Will Durant--
“men standing on the edge of knowledge, and holding the light a little farther ahead; men carving marble into forms ennobling men; men molding peoples into better instruments of greatness; men making a language of music and music out of language; men dreaming of finer lives, and living them.”
The Trump supporters (with their cheap moralizing) scream we don't have TIME for that crap.
IMO, NOW, especially, IS THE TIME for that crap.
-
@Smokin Joe @jpsb @Norm Lenhart
I have been giving this idea of "cheap moralizing" some thought. I've been trying to find some historic parallels.
Will and Ariel Durant
Now you can argue the "cheap moralizing" of the "greatest generation" brought about the rise of the beat generation.
The beat generation that died a necessary death finding their new "freedom" could not last without standing on the shoulders of the "cheap moralizing" constaints that true freedom imposes.
And on through the counter-culture of the sixties to more recent history.
One can suppose that "Better that people teach their children tools for thinking and a habit of thinking for themselves rather than copy the ways of their parent's generation."
That is a great idea. But where do they find their own new answers? What philosophical base do they employ?
In the current situation of Trump vs. NeverTrump this accusation of "cheap moralizing" on the part of the NeverTrumps is in fact completely the opposite. It is a finely honed philosophy based on knowledge and principles derived exactly from people who neither sought favor or fame but as, in the words of Will Durant--
The Trump supporters (with their cheap moralizing) scream we don't have TIME for that crap.
IMO, NOW, especially, IS THE TIME for that crap.
Trump supporters philosophy on life comes from television in sound bytes and morality plays written by leftists pushing leftism. There is not a thinker of any depth among them, much less anyone with the principles that actual thought would naturally develop.
One need only look at the Trumpist sloganeering to see the truth of that. Trump posted his manifesto and they all jump on it as if it was truth revealed to Moses. Not one has stopped and asked "How" it will come to pass.
Basicly, we should argue with them for two reasons.
1: so that lurkers see how vapid the Trumpist mindset and positions are. The lurker is whats important. Not the Trumpist. The Trumpist is a write off of no worth to himself or his country. He is to be opposed and used as a warning to others as to what a person who does not think, becomes.
2: Entertainment and practice. Trumpists do not think and thus by definition cannot be taught. If they cannot be taught, they cannot learn. So practice and entertainment are all they are worth spending time on other than 1 above.
-
@Smokin Joe @jpsb @Norm Lenhart
I have been giving this idea of "cheap moralizing" some thought. I've been trying to find some historic parallels.
Will and Ariel Durant
Now you can argue the "cheap moralizing" of the "greatest generation" brought about the rise of the beat generation.
The beat generation that died a necessary death finding their new "freedom" could not last without standing on the shoulders of the "cheap moralizing" constaints that true freedom imposes.
And on through the counter-culture of the sixties to more recent history.
One can suppose that "Better that people teach their children tools for thinking and a habit of thinking for themselves rather than copy the ways of their parent's generation."
That is a great idea. But where do they find their own new answers? What philosophical base do they employ?
In the current situation of Trump vs. NeverTrump this accusation of "cheap moralizing" on the part of the NeverTrumps is in fact completely the opposite. It is a finely honed philosophy based on knowledge and principles derived exactly from people who neither sought favor or fame but as, in the words of Will Durant--
The Trump supporters (with their cheap moralizing) scream we don't have TIME for that crap.
IMO, NOW, especially, IS THE TIME for that crap.
Morals... ideals... governing principles... a constant fight to not only preserve, but expand individual freedoms.
Those are the things that brought me to the GOP.
Now I'm told that the things that brought me to the Party that I've supported my entire adult life are "cheap" and inferior to winning an election, when the person that I am supposed to support stands in stark opposition to the principles that brought me to the dance to begin with.
No.
Just no.
There's nothing cheap about my decision to stay true to mine own standards.
-
Morals... ideals... governing principles... a constant fight to not only preserve, but expand individual freedoms.
Those are the things that brought me to the GOP.
Now I'm told that the things that brought me to the Party that I've supported my entire adult life are "cheap" and inferior to winning an election, when the person that I am supposed to support stands in stark opposition to the principles that brought me to the dance to begin with.
No.
Just no.
There's nothing cheap about my decision to stay true to mine own standards.
Amen, Luis! AMEN!!!
-
Morals... ideals... governing principles... a constant fight to not only preserve, but expand individual freedoms.
Those are the things that brought me to the GOP.
Now I'm told that the things that brought me to the Party that I've supported my entire adult life are "cheap" and inferior to winning an election, when the person that I am supposed to support stands in stark opposition to the principles that brought me to the dance to begin with.
No.
Just no.
There's nothing cheap about my decision to stay true to mine own standards.
All I know for sure is my 'cheap moralizing' has cost me EVERYTHING material in the past. I blindly put my trust in "good" people and they destroyed me. They didn't do it out of meanness or spite. They did it out of cheap moralizing. Kicking the can down the road. And they now bring this country to the mess of this election.
-
If Trump loses we are all going to need a hell of a lot more than luck.
-
If Trump loses we are all going to need a hell of a lot more than luck.
Trump wont be any different that Hillary.
Only the truly delusional think otherwise.
-
If Trump loses we are all going to need a hell of a lot more than luck.
Then I guess you should have considered that before forcing a liberal on us to oppose Hillary. Now this is owned by you and yours. We told you 'no'. You knew better.
-
If Trump loses we are all going to need a hell of a lot more than luck.
Exactly so. I am ready. Are you?
-
@Smokin Joe @jpsb @Norm Lenhart
I have been giving this idea of "cheap moralizing" some thought. I've been trying to find some historic parallels.
Will and Ariel Durant
Now you can argue the "cheap moralizing" of the "greatest generation" brought about the rise of the beat generation.
The beat generation that died a necessary death finding their new "freedom" could not last without standing on the shoulders of the "cheap moralizing" constaints that true freedom imposes.
And on through the counter-culture of the sixties to more recent history.
One can suppose that "Better that people teach their children tools for thinking and a habit of thinking for themselves rather than copy the ways of their parent's generation."
That is a great idea. But where do they find their own new answers? What philosophical base do they employ?
They go out and reinvent the social wheel. They experiment until they find something that works, or they get lost in their immorality or die young and stupidly, having accomplished little of note except perhaps providing a good bad example for another generation.
Better to have listened at an early age and held those concepts close, to have avoided the pain and impoverishment of a badly lived life.
You see, those rules laid out by a loving God in the Bible weren't laid out to be mean, any more than not letting your four year old play with fire is 'mean'. They were put there to guide those who would listen in how to live a long, healthy, and happy life, well regarded by their peers, prosperous and without pitfalls.
They weren't "mean" any more than a parent disciplining a child to prevent it from self-immolation, no more mean than the rules which prohibit smoking in a fuel depot.
It is only when the outlook of the person is so focused on their thoughts of instantaneous gratification that restrictions on that, however prudent, become cruel, mean, or evil in their minds, a complete inversion of reality. It is little surprising that the followers of such a prominent man-child would demonstrate that trait as well.
In the current situation of Trump vs. NeverTrump this accusation of "cheap moralizing" on the part of the NeverTrumps is in fact completely the opposite. It is a finely honed philosophy based on knowledge and principles derived exactly from people who neither sought favor or fame but as, in the words of Will Durant--
The Trump supporters (with their cheap moralizing) scream we don't have TIME for that crap.
IMO, NOW, especially, IS THE TIME for that crap.
It is back to the philosophy of instantaneous gratification. I find it sadly amusing that people so into "If it feels good, do it" call themselves "conservative" when that was the absolute hallmark of hippie liberalism.
Like addicts who want their life to improve the second they lay down the spike or cork the bottle, it will take time for the improvements to manifest themselves. But no, rather than support a person who could start that pendulum swinging the other way, they took up the standard for the one who promised the moon and stars with free overnight delivery, because they WANTED to BELIEVE, so much so, that even when told it was not possible, they persisted.
NOW is ABSOLUTELY the time to fall back on principle, to be guided by those things we know are right and good, and to choose our leaders wisely from people guided by those principles of honesty, decency, and self-restraint. But that doesn't mean voting for the Republican or the Democrat.
-
If Trump loses we are all going to need a hell of a lot more than luck.
Yep. We're going to need a Congress with stones, a spine, and some sense of direction to fight all the leftist BS and safeguard our Rights. (Same as we'd need if he won.)
-
Trump wont be any different that Hillary.
Only the truly delusional think otherwise.
I think he will be slightly less bad.
-
I think he will be slightly less bad.
IMHO slightly less bad is what we just spent 8 years enduring.
That's not a real bright future we're looking at either way.
-
I think he will be slightly less bad.
Slightly less bad than filthy leftist corruption is still filthy leftist corruption.
If I support either, I am sacrificing every principle and moral value I ever had.
And I can't do that.
-
If Trump loses we are all going to need a hell of a lot more than luck.
We'll need it either way.
-
I think he will be slightly less bad.
Fiscally, just as bad, if not worse
Economically, the same
Corruption, better than her. No one matches her on corruption
Social issues would depend whatever Trump believes on any given day.
Should he win, it'll shock his supporters,who dreamed we were electing a Reagan/Coolidge/Goldwater clone, how much closer he will be to BHO
-
Fiscally, just as bad, if not worse
Economically, the same
Corruption, better than her. No one matches her on corruption
Social issues would depend whatever Trump believes on any given day.
Should he win, it'll shock his supporters,who dreamed we were electing a Reagan/Coolidge/Goldwater clone, how much closer he will be to BHO
Ripping up our trade deals and starting trade wars with our largest trading partners will tank our economy. I'd say that's *FAR* worse than Clinton's status quo.
I like having a job, for I like having a home, cloths, food, insurance, and transportation. So, I'd like to keep one. Trump works towards ending jobs for millions.
-
Republicans used to be the party of Free Trade. Trump comes on the scene and overnight everyone switches positions. It's hard to even know what to say to that.
Yep. Trumpists are leftists (not liberals) who want to simply make sure all the government largess goes to the white right people. The rest need to be deported or registered with the government for survellience.
-
Yep. Trumpists are leftists (not liberals) who want to simply make sure all the government largess goes to the white right people. The rest need to be deported or registered with the government for survellience.
Be nice to end the thinking the government has any largesse.
-
Ripping up our trade deals and starting trade wars with our largest trading partners will tank our economy. I'd say that's *FAR* worse than Clinton's status quo.
I like having a job, for I like having a home, cloths, food, insurance, and transportation. So, I'd like to keep one. Trump works towards ending jobs for millions.
Should he win the election by some miracle, my guess is you're not going to see much difference from him in any trade deals than what we currently have
Why do I think that ? Because, despite his rhetoric to his supporters, once he got into office, he's not going to do anything that would deliberately tank our economy. Reality wins out over rhetoric
-
Republicans used to be the party of Free Trade. Trump comes on the scene and overnight everyone switches positions. It's hard to even know what to say to that.
That's why I picked the tagline I did
-
IMHO slightly less bad is what we just spent 8 years enduring.
That's not a real bright future we're looking at either way.
No, no it's not. I see it as being very grim.
-
Be nice to end the thinking the government has any largesse.
It would be nice. But that wouldn't be the case with either Hillary or Donald in the WH. Both are lovers of big-government (their only god) control over We, the People. And both have their preferences, just like Obama, re: what segment of We, the People should get the majority of benefit from taxpayer dollars. With Hillary it's her and anyone that supports the Clintons either monetarily or via quid pro quo. With Donald it's him and anyone that he "thinks" would benefit the Trump family and foundation and mostly people that look like him and his kids. You know...white or slightly orange people. The Golden Chosen.
-
@Sanguine
"we should be looking at the first lady candidates, instead of just talking about the men"
“If Donald trump is elected, Mrs. Trump will be the first first lady that has ever posed nude; the first first lady that’s the third wife [of the president]; and the first foreign-born first lady in this century.” She said, “by contrast,” Cruz’s wife Heidi would be “the first pro-life first lady.”
"You've been covering Nancy Reagan, look at what an influencer she was to her husband. … I think posing nude speaks to character," she said.
Was that an attack on Meleana Trump by the Cruz campaign or not? Did that Cruz spokes person imply that Mrs Trump was unfit to be first lady or not?
FYI the attacks on Mrs Trump by team Cruz only got worse after this first one.
The lengths Cruzers go to distort the truth is amazing. Trump at this point had not said one word about Heidi Cruz. However after weeks of team Cruz attacking Mrs Trump he did fire back with an, OMG, a retweet of an unflattering picture of Mrs Cruz. Oh the horror. Ted Cruz better hope that I have forgotten about this when he up for reelection in 2018.
I listened to the tape. Did they say anything about Mrs. Trump that was untruthful ?
No.
Soooooo. Not an attack.
If Trump is elected she WOULD be the first First Lady to have publicly available nude photos.
NOT an attack.
(Company is gone and I could finally catch up with this thread. Ya'll like to wore me out.)
-
Be nice to end the thinking the government has any largesse.
Everywhere I go, it seems to be sitting on its largesse....
-
Should he win the election by some miracle, my guess is you're not going to see much difference from him in any trade deals than what we currently have
Why do I think that ? Because, despite his rhetoric to his supporters, once he got into office, he's not going to do anything that would deliberately tank our economy. Reality wins out over rhetoric
Trump lives in his own little version of reality... so I wouldn't be too sure on your assertion.
-
@jpsb, did you actually listen to the video? It’s about a CNN story that both campaigns responded to. The Cruz spokeswoman did mention Melania’s naked pics, which I think is stupid and a bit beside the point. Now, how you spin that to be “the origin of the attack” is just shameful. You know where the attack originated and you go and find a video of talking head discussing the attack as “proof” of the origination of the attack. You’re making my head hurt with all the machinations. You’re not a “campaign operative” by any chance, are you?
It was her job to make the pictures, I don't see why everybody is up in arms about it. Not like it was some secret.
-
****cute kitty
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Be nice to end the thinking the government has any largesse.
Considering the federal debt, yeah.
-
It was her job to make the pictures, I don't see why everybody is up in arms about it. Not like it was some secret.
I suppose it says something about her; not being a female supermodel myself, I couldn't say what would compel her to pose in the nude. Probably a lot of pressure to do so.
When it comes to matters of character I'm more bothered by the fact that she married Trump (whose own fealty to marriage vows seems suspect)....
-
Should he win the election by some miracle, my guess is you're not going to see much difference from him in any trade deals than what we currently have
Why do I think that ? Because, despite his rhetoric to his supporters, once he got into office, he's not going to do anything that would deliberately tank our economy. Reality wins out over rhetoric
True... but do you have any reason to think Donald Trump ever deals in reality?
-
I listened to the tape. Did they say anything about Mrs. Trump that was untruthful ?
No.
Soooooo. Not an attack.
If Trump is elected she WOULD be the first First Lady to have publicly available nude photos.
NOT an attack.
(Company is gone and I could finally catch up with this thread. Ya'll like to wore me out.)
Are you from Texas. I had to smile at "Ya'll like to wore me out."
-
True... but do you have any reason to think Donald Trump ever deals in reality?
He's been moderately successful in the business world so, yes, he's had some dealings with reality.
That said, his real strength is in marketing the Trump brand; and marketing is one of those places where reality is ... malleable. He has done quite well for himself at the confluence of marketing and investors.
Once released into the reality of the business world, Trump's enterprises tend to have a rather spotty survival rate.
-
He's been moderately successful in the business world so, yes, he's had some dealings with reality.
That said, his real strength is in marketing the Trump brand; and marketing is one of those places where reality is ... malleable. He has done quite well for himself at the confluence of marketing and investors.
Once released into the reality of the business world, Trump's enterprises tend to have a rather spotty survival rate.
Scorched earth.
-
He's been moderately successful in the business world so, yes, he's had some dealings with reality.
That said, his real strength is in marketing the Trump brand; and marketing is one of those places where reality is ... malleable. He has done quite well for himself at the confluence of marketing and investors.
Once released into the reality of the business world, Trump's enterprises tend to have a rather spotty survival rate.
I still think his father set up some form of trust that has people helping his idiot son through life.
Look what happens when Trump is corralled by his handlers. His numbers rise when he stays on their script. When he breaks his leash, it all goes to hell fast because he goes full psycho.
I have an extremely hard time believing that such a man succeeded in business. I think it's more likely that his father's 'handlers' found him success and when he broke the leash, his bankruptcies resulted.
-
He's been moderately successful in the business world so, yes, he's had some dealings with reality.
That said, his real strength is in marketing the Trump brand; and marketing is one of those places where reality is ... malleable. He has done quite well for himself at the confluence of marketing and investors.
Once released into the reality of the business world, Trump's enterprises tend to have a rather spotty survival rate.
Wrong. Trump has been horrible in the business world. He's gone through inherited wealth ... had grandiose ideas... borrowed too much ... refused to pay too many people ... hired too many illegals... numerous bankruptcies hanging creditors out to dry ... record numbers of lawsuits ... started fraudulent money-making schemes as in Trump University, Trump wine, Trump beef... I could go on.
-
Why do I think that ? Because, despite his rhetoric to his supporters, once he got into office, he's not going to do anything that would deliberately tank our economy. Reality wins out over rhetoric
Not to mention the elephant in the room - most (not all) of the "terrible deals" were negotiated when the USA was in a far stronger position than it is now, economically and politically speaking. Scrap them and then try getting a better deal after Obama ran your international credibility into the ground? Ain't gonna happen.
-
Scrap them and then try getting a better deal after Obama ran your international credibility into the ground? Ain't gonna happen.
The first part, "scrap them," could well happen under Trump. To him, they'd just be "deals," not unlike the sorts of deals he's frequently dissolved through bankruptcy.
Of course, when you're running a country you can't just start over with a new set of patsies. Or maybe you can, I don't know .... but more likely it ends up starting a war.
-
Wrong. Trump has been horrible in the business world. He's gone through inherited wealth ... had grandiose ideas... borrowed too much ... refused to pay too many people ... hired too many illegals... numerous bankruptcies hanging creditors out to dry ... record numbers of lawsuits ... started fraudulent money-making schemes as in Trump University, Trump wine, Trump beef... I could go on.
True enough. But Trump has been very successful in marketing himself -- there's no way he could keep starting then running businesses into the ground without significant investors, and for whatever reason he's always been able to find them.
Trump is very effective at influencing peoples' perceptions of reality, as it applies to him and his enterprises -- whether they've been in business or in politics.
He does deal with reality; he just doesn't depend upon it.
-
The first part, "scrap them," could well happen under Trump. To him, they'd just be "deals," not unlike the sorts of deals he's frequently dissolved through bankruptcy.
Of course, when you're running a country you can't just start over with a new set of patsies. Or maybe you can, I don't know .... but more likely it ends up starting a war.
Well, we ended up getting out of the Great Depression because of World War II, so that might just be Trump's plan all along: start World War III.
-
Are you from Texas. I had to smile at "Ya'll like to wore me out."
Yes, originally. I lapse into my natural speech patterns sometimes. Especially when I am tired and under caffinated. I worked for a fortune 100 company that actually sent me to school to rid me of my regional speech characteristics so they could promote me.
-
Well, we ended up getting out of the Great Depression because of World War II, so that might just be Trump's plan all along: start World War III.
I disagree. A lot of people say that, but War being good for the economy just doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's a complex issue, but if you are interested, you might check this out:
https://mises.org/library/world-war-ii-did-not-end-great-depression
-
Yes, originally. I lapse into my natural speech patterns sometimes. Especially when I am tired and under caffinated. I worked for a fortune 100 company that actually sent me to school to rid me of my regional speech characteristics so they could promote me.
I hate when that happens. We are losing our regional speech and we will all sound like robots.... or TV announcers.
-
True enough. But Trump has been very successful in marketing himself -- there's no way he could keep starting then running businesses into the ground without significant investors, and for whatever reason he's always been able to find them.
Trump is very effective at influencing peoples' perceptions of reality, as it applies to him and his enterprises -- whether they've been in business or in politics.
He does deal with reality; he just doesn't depend upon it.
Yep! He deals with the reality that 'there's a sucker born every minute.'
-
I disagree. A lot of people say that, but War being good for the economy just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Broken Window Fallacy writ large
-
I worked for a fortune 100 company that actually sent me to school to rid me of my regional speech characteristics so they could promote me.
That's a cryin' shame, right there.
-
Yep! He deals with the reality that 'there's a sucker born every minute.'
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." ~ A. Lincoln.
"All that matters is if you can fool enough of the people for enough of the time...." ~ D. Trump.
-
I disagree. A lot of people say that, but War being good for the economy just doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's a complex issue, but if you are interested, you might check this out:
https://mises.org/library/world-war-ii-did-not-end-great-depression
Hey, I never said it was a GOOD idea!
-
I hate when that happens. We are losing our regional speech and we will all sound like robots.... or TV announcers.
Yep. Losing all the color and character in our speech and writing. That is why Americans are so charmed by British, Irish and Scotish speech and accents.
-
Yes, originally. I lapse into my natural speech patterns sometimes. Especially when I am tired and under caffinated. I worked for a fortune 100 company that actually sent me to school to rid me of my regional speech characteristics so they could promote me.
I had to watch Johnny Carson and use it like Rosetta Stone...
-
I had to watch Johnny Carson and use it like Rosetta Stone...
:silly: :silly:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpLtmt2bMCI
-
I disagree. A lot of people say that, but War being good for the economy just doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's a complex issue, but if you are interested, you might check this out:
https://mises.org/library/world-war-ii-did-not-end-great-depression
You mean building a whole bunch of stuff and then blowing it up doesn't make use richer?
-
I disagree. A lot of people say that, but War being good for the economy just doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's a complex issue, but if you are interested, you might check this out:
https://mises.org/library/world-war-ii-did-not-end-great-depression (https://mises.org/library/world-war-ii-did-not-end-great-depression)
Something people don't realize about economics is how much psychology plays into it. People aren't "machines" who do what they're supposed to like cogs in a wheel.
-
Yes, originally. I lapse into my natural speech patterns sometimes. Especially when I am tired and under caffinated. I worked for a fortune 100 company that actually sent me to school to rid me of my regional speech characteristics so they could promote me.
I still get people that laugh at me when I say I'm fixing to do something.
-
I still get people that laugh at me when I say I'm fixing to do something.
I was fixin' to say that!
-
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." ~ A. Lincoln.
Just the ones in the North.
-
Just the ones in the North.
So you're also a neocon.... (federate). No surprise.
**nononono*
-
So you're also a neocon.... (federate). No surprise.
**nononono*
You'll have to be clearer in your effort to communicate with me. I do not understand your comment.
-
You'll have to be clearer in your effort to communicate with me. I do not understand your comment.
Back at TOS there was (probably still is) a vocal and silly contingent of posters who rhapsodize about the glories of the Confederate Cause, and who hate Mr. Lincoln with an abiding passion.
I called them "neoconfederates," because I enjoyed the chance to label them "neocons."
Your post about Lincoln and the North (tacit implication: those in the South couldn't be fooled by Lincoln....) -- it reminded me of them.