The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: truth_seeker on October 10, 2017, 04:37:02 am
-
Bannon Wants Candidates to Challenge Every Republican Incumbent Except Cruz
October 9, 2017 | Olivia Beavers
Stephen Bannon is looking to challenge every sitting GOP lawmaker except Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), saying "no one is safe" as he looks to challenge the Republican establishment in the 2018 midterms and beyond.
"There's a coalition coming together that is going to challenge every Republican incumbent except for Ted Cruz," Bannon told host Sean Hannity on Fox News' "Hannity" on Monday night.
The former White House chief strategist said he plans recruit candidates who can run against the lawmakers who have not faithfully fought to enact Trump's agenda.
"There's a basic agenda that Trump ran on and won. He carried states Republicans haven't carried in living memory — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. This agenda works. The American people voted for it," he said in part.
"By the way, [Mitch] McConnell would not be majority leader unless Trump — in North Carolina and Missouri and Wisconsin — was able to carry those senators across the finish line. It's incumbent upon them to back President Trump's plan, but you don't see it," Bannon continued.
His comments come around two weeks after an anti-establishment candidate he backed, Roy Moore, defeated incumbent Mississippi Sen. Luther Strange in a GOP primary for the special election to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
McConnell and his allies spent heavily in their attempts to defeat Moore, who made opposition to the Senate leader a key part of his campaign.
Bannon, who returned to his role leading Breitbart News after his stint in the White House, said his team is "spending a ton of time with the grassroots organizations to make sure these candidates are fully vetted," saying they will be candidates with experience who are ready to take office unlike 2010 when the Tea Party movement was first gaining momentum.
snip
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/354641-bannon-is-recruiting-2018-candidates-to-challenge-every-republican
-
What's not to like, about this?
-
What's not to like, about this?
The problem is that Brannon is no Conservative.
-
This thread should be a hoot! *****rollingeyes*****
-
What's not to like, about this?
Well, I don't particularly like some guy having such influence over elections. Yes, I know this stuff goes on all the time, but just what kind of candidate is Bannon going to promote? Someone who will be loyal to Trump? Our elected representatives are supposed to be working for us, not for one person. I don't want a rubber stamp congress. That's what dictators have.
-
They will never accomplish anything unless they play as a team. That's probably what Bannon has in mind.
-
Well, I don't particularly like some guy having such influence over elections. Yes, I know this stuff goes on all the time, but just what kind of candidate is Bannon going to promote? Someone who will be loyal to Trump? Our elected representatives are supposed to be working for us, not for one person. I don't want a rubber stamp congress. That's what dictators have.
:amen:
-
The problem is that Brannon is no Conservative.
Either is the RNC. What's your point?
-
Well, I don't particularly like some guy having such influence over elections. Yes, I know this stuff goes on all the time, but just what kind of candidate is Bannon going to promote? Someone who will be loyal to Trump? Our elected representatives are supposed to be working for us, not for one person. I don't want a rubber stamp congress. That's what dictators have.
?? You have a rubber stamp Senate (a select few aren't) because of one guy. That's the problem. This is no different then McConnell and the NRSC using their influence and $$ in supporting incumbents in primaries against conservative challengers across the country. We just saw a classic example of that happening when they backed Luther Strange. Cruz realized this 'game' was going on years ago and refused to play it and is one of the reasons he and McConnell don't see eye to eye and the reason that the Senate is so divided. I find it very interesting that Bannon is asking candidates to challenge Republican incumbents except Cruz. Looks to me like the battle lines have been drawn!
-
?? You have a rubber stamp Senate (a select few aren't) because of one guy. That's the problem. This is no different then McConnell and the NRSC using their influence and $$ in supporting incumbents in primaries against conservative challengers across the country. We just saw a classic example of that happening when they backed Luther Strange. Cruz realized this 'game' was going on years ago and refused to play it and is one of the reasons he and McConnell don't see eye to eye and the reason that the Senate is so divided. I find it very interesting that Bannon is asking candidates to challenge Republican incumbents except Cruz. Looks to me like the battle lines have been drawn!
The reason is that the Mercer family supports Cruz and Bannon.
-
Well, I don't particularly like some guy having such influence over elections. Yes, I know this stuff goes on all the time, but just what kind of candidate is Bannon going to promote? Someone who will be loyal to Trump? Our elected representatives are supposed to be working for us, not for one person. I don't want a rubber stamp congress. That's what dictators have.
LOL, they hate Trump so much they'd rather a Congress of RINOs than real conservatives trying to advance Trumps' conservative agenda.
-
The reason is that the Mercer family supports Cruz and Bannon.
And the Rats support McConnell and the NRSC.
Ever wonder why they put a no name loser freshman like Corey Gardner in charge of getting Senate GOP'ers reelected?
-
Well this should help Cruz be more effective in the Senate during the next eight months *****rollingeyes*****
-
The problem is that Brannon is no Conservative.
And how do you know this? I really have very little knowledge of Steve Bannon other than that he works for Breitbart and briefly worked for Trump.
I would think working for Breitbart would indicate that he is a conservative.
-
The reason is that the Mercer family supports Cruz and Bannon.
The reason Ted Cruz will not be challenged is he is already outside the system. He proved to be here in Texas when he ran against the sitting Lt. Governor Dewhurst, who was backed by Governor Perry and all the incumbent Senators.
If you do not believe that is true, then you really do not know what you are talking about.
-
The reason is that the Mercer family supports Cruz and Bannon.
I though Mercer switched his support from team Cruz to team Trump. Again, incumbents in the Senate are supported by McConnell and the NRSC and purposefully try to keep out conservatives from entering the Senate. It's no secret. Didn't Bannon state he could do more good outside the White House? Perhaps Bannon is going to help drain the swamp from the outside. Rumor has it that Trump supported Strange because his weasel son-in-law Kushner told him too.
-
Well, I don't particularly like some guy having such influence over elections.
I am a regular complainer about how much influence the New York and Los Angeles media have over elections. In the list of things on the basis of priority, I object more strongly to their influence than I do to the influence of anyone else.
-
Well this should help Cruz be more effective in the Senate during the next eight months *****rollingeyes*****
True enough, but I still like Bannon essentially saying that Cruz is the ONLY real principled Conservative in Washington. All others are expendable.
Bannon, whose Conservatism has been questioned ad nauseum in TBR, is the purrfect conduit here.
-
And how do you know this? I really have very little knowledge of Steve Bannon other than that he works for Breitbart and briefly worked for Trump.
I would think working for Breitbart would indicate that he is a conservative.
Pragmatism: A foreign concept to 'principled' NTs. *****rollingeyes*****
-
True enough, but I still like Bannon essentially saying that Cruz is the ONLY real principled Conservative in Washington. All others are expendable.
Bannon, whose Conservatism has been questioned ad nauseum in TBR, is the purrfect conduit here.
This is something you say behind closed doors to Cruz ... not publically, IMO. I think there are one or two others worth keeping, too. ^-^
-
Let's see who in the GOP is up for reelection in 2018
Orin Hatch, yeah primary him
John Barrasso, never heard of him and that's not good. Primary his ass.
Ded Fischer, same as John above.
Tennessee is an open seat. So yes, get a conservative in the primary.
Alabama had it's primary and we won with Judge Moore.
Roger Wicker, another one I've never heard of
Jeff Flake primary him
Dean Heller primary him
Ted Cruz, despite being a lying cockroach, does not need a primary challenger from the right.
-
This is something you say behind closed doors to Cruz ... not publically, IMO. I think there are one or two others worth keeping, too. ^-^
Agreed, but it was publicly announced for a reason and shortly after Strange lost. Again, I believe that the battle line has been drawn against the swamp. The others that are worth keeping aren't up for re-election in 2018.
-
This is something you say behind closed doors to Cruz ... not publically, IMO. I think there are one or two others worth keeping, too. ^-^
Not if you want to ensure that the GOP House and Senate are cleared of members currently being extorted and blackmailed for closet skeletons....in the hands of our enemies.
Exhibit A: Senator Bob Corker :shrug:
-
Pragmatism: A foreign concept to 'principled' NTs. *****rollingeyes*****
I dislike pragmatism as a motivation, but I have come to recognize it's occasional necessity.
-
Ted Cruz, despite being a lying cockroach, does not need a primary challenger from the right.
Whoa, what? On the other site during the intense part of the primary, I asked people to provide examples of where Ted Cruz lied about something. I was assailed from all sides, and yet not a single person could provide a valid example of Ted Cruz lying.
Now it's your turn. Let us see what you've got.
-
Let's see who in the GOP is up for reelection in 2018
Orin Hatch, yeah primary him
John Barrasso, never heard of him and that's not good. Primary his ass.
Ded Fischer, same as John above.
Tennessee is an open seat. So yes, get a conservative in the primary.
Alabama had it's primary and we won with Judge Moore.
Roger Wicker, another one I've never heard of
Ted Cruz, despite being a lying cockroach, does not need a primary challenger from the right.
Barrasso earned an 'F' by Conservative Review. Also, add Corker and Flake to the list - primary them!
2022 is when most of the Senate swamp is up for re-election.
http://www.worldpress.org/article.cfm/senate-seats-up-for-reelection-in-2018
-
Whoa, what? On the other site during the intense part of the primary, I asked people to provide examples of where Ted Cruz lied about something. I was assailed from all sides, and yet not a single person could provide a valid example of Ted Cruz lying.
Now it's your turn. Let us see what you've got.
Come on. He is called Lyin' Ted after all.
-
Barrasso earned an 'F' by Conservative Review. Also, add Corker and Flake to the list - primary them!
2022 is when most of the Senate swamp is up for re-election.
http://www.worldpress.org/article.cfm/senate-seats-up-for-reelection-in-2018
I don't think Corker is running. I also updated my list and yes definitely primary Flake.
-
Come on. He is called Lyin' Ted after all.
Yep, can't trust Ted to do what he says he's going to do either.
-
Come on. He is called Lyin' Ted after all.
As Lincoln said: "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn 't make it so.
-
...Trumps' conservative agenda.
Have you seen this yet?
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago
Since Congress can't get its act together on HealthCare, I will be using the power of the pen to give great HealthCare to many people - FAST
-
Yep, can't trust Ted to do what he says he's going to do either.
Tell me about it. He said he was going to win the primary and look at what happened.
-
Whoa, what? On the other site during the intense part of the primary, I asked people to provide examples of where Ted Cruz lied about something. I was assailed from all sides, and yet not a single person could provide a valid example of Ted Cruz lying.
Now it's your turn. Let us see what you've got.
@DiogenesLamp
Ben Carson is dropping out of the race so don't waste your vote on him.
Donald Trump used emanate domain to make himself rich.
Trump is responsible for the riots in Chicago.
I'm against TPP.
I'm against legalization of illegals.
It's been a while those are just off the top of my head. There is more. I'm sure
if you asked at the "other site" you'd get a more complete list.
-
I dislike pragmatism as a motivation, but I have come to recognize it's occasional necessity.
A lack of "pragmatism" is not the main internal challenge faced by conservatives in this time. The main problem is the attempted hijacking of the conservative movement by isolationists, protectionists and nationalists like Steve Bannon.
-
@DiogenesLamp
Ben Carson is dropping out of the race so don't waste your vote on him.
Donald Trump used emanate domain to make himself rich.
Trump is responsible for the riots in Chicago.
I'm against TPP.
I'm against legalization of illegals.
It's been a while those are just off the top of my head. There is more. I'm sure
if you asked at the "other site" you'd get a more complete list.
Not only does Ted lie, but his father assassinated Kennedy.
-
A lack of "pragmatism" is not the main internal challenge faced by conservatives in this time. The main problem is the attempted hijacking of the conservative movement by isolationists, protectionists and nationalists like Steve Bannon.
:amen:
There is nothing wrong with being Pragmatic.
-
@DiogenesLamp
Donald Trump used emanate domain to make himself rich.
That part is true.
-
That part is true.
Do it is not. It is a flat out lie. Trump never used eminent domain to acquire property.
-
Do it is not. It is a flat out lie. Trump never used eminent domain to acquire property.
Why don't you google Vera Coking..
-
It seems like only yesterday our glorious President wanted to start/donate to a PAC that would primary my Senator, Ted Cruz.
(https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/dr-phil-2.jpg?w=605)
Project much @jpsb
-
This thread should be a hoot! *****rollingeyes*****
You must be clairvoyant, my friend 88devil
@DCPatriot
-
As Lincoln said: "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn 't make it so.
I'm with you on this. I've never seen any evidence of Cruz lying that certain people here keep repeating as truth.
-
Why don't you google Vera Coking..
If I am not mistaken Vera Coking house was there when Trump sold that property.
Trump did not use eminent domain to acquire her property.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/07/21/nyregion/21APPRAISALweb2/21APPRAISALweb2-blog427.jpg)
-
@DiogenesLamp
Ben Carson is dropping out of the race so don't waste your vote on him.
Ted Cruz said no such thing. Since you made the allegation, please provide proof that Ted Cruz said this.
I'll get to the rest of your claims after you provide support for this claim.
-
A lack of "pragmatism" is not the main internal challenge faced by conservatives in this time. The main problem is the attempted hijacking of the conservative movement by isolationists, protectionists and nationalists like Steve Bannon.
You think someone can "highjack" the conservative movement? How would they do that?
Also, explain why isolationism, protectionism and nationalism is bad.
-
It seems like only yesterday our glorious President wanted to start/donate to a PAC that would primary my Senator, Ted Cruz.
(https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/dr-phil-2.jpg?w=605)
Project much @jpsb
And so did most of the Texas delegation at the GOP convention. But as is usual
for lying Ted he found a way of evolving and supporting the GOP nominee. Can
you say flip flop?
-
:amen:
There is nothing wrong with being Pragmatic.
Well since you agree, perhaps you can answer the same questions I asked in my previous message? Why is Isolationism bad? Why is Protectionism bad? Why is Nationalism bad?
-
Ted Cruz said no such thing. Since you made the allegation, please provide proof that Ted Cruz said this.
I'll get to the rest of your claims after you provide support for this claim.
Lying Ted is responsible for the lies by told by his campaign staff and lies in
his approved ads. Even lying Ted agrees with me on that. If lying Ted did not
approve of spreading the lie that Carson was dropping out he would have fired
his very dirty campaign manager. He didn't so he owns that lie too.
-
You think someone can "highjack" the conservative movement? How would they do that?
2016 Presidential Election ring a bell?
Also, explain why isolationism, protectionism and nationalism is bad.
Easy answers.
1) without the United States intervening on the global stage the horrors of the 20th century would have been significantly worse
2) tariff wars, inflation and the great depression
3) Nationalism is exclusionary...it is the antithesis of Patriotism. nationalism gets you 1940's Germany and Italy...and the Soviet Union of the Cold War. U.S> Patriotism defeated all of those.
-
Worth Repeating for you, since you brought up the Ben Carson thing @jpsb
Lyin Ted
Cruz's email stated, verbatim:
Dear ___,
Breaking News. The press is reporting that Dr. Ben Carson is taking time off from the campaign trail after Iowa and making a big announcement next week.
Please inform any Carson caucus goers of this news and urge them to caucus for Cruz.
EACH of those statements was factually accurate. Not false in the slightest.
Here are the relevant portions of the transcript from the CNN report:
Tapper: Thanks, Wolf. Well, CNN has learned some news about the man who, at least according to polls, is in fourth place here in Iowa. Now, Dana, a week from tomorrow, we’re all going to be doing this again for the New Hampshire primary. So almost every single candidate is going to be going directly from here to New Hampshire to campaign–except for the man in fourth place, who a few months ago was in first place here, Dr. Ben Carson. What have we learned?
Bash: That’s right. We should say that our Chris Moody is breaking this news, that Ben Carson is going to go back to Florida, to his home, regardless of how he does tonight here in Iowa. He’s going to go there for several days. And then afterwards, he’s not going to go to South Carolina. He’s not going to go to New Hampshire. He’s going to come to Washington, D.C., and he’s going to do that because the National Prayer Breakfast is on Thursday
. . .
Bash: Look, if you want to be President of the United States, you don’t go home to Florida. I mean, that’s bottom line. That’s the end of the story. If you want to signal to your supporters that you want it, that you’re hungry for it, that you want them to get out and and campaign, you’ve got to be out there doing it too. And he’s not doing it. it’s very unusual.
The Cruz email went out approximately 4 minutes before the Iowa Caucuses opened and did not effect the outcome of the Caucus. Carson ended up with approximately 17,000 votes and that result outperformed his polling by 1.6%. Carson could not overtake Rubio for third place as he would have needed more than twice his vote total to do so - Rubio lead Carson by about 25,000 votes.
Trump, of course, lied when he claimed that Cruz's email stole the election in Iowa. Trump lied then as he does now. It's his nature.
Ted didn't lie. Period. The fact that you are so willing to stare myopically at the one statement by Ted in order to imagine a lie yet overlook the near daily lying by Trump shows that you have zero integrity and are hopelessly irrational.
-
Lying Ted is responsible for the lies by told by his campaign staff and lies in
his approved ads. Even lying Ted agrees with me on that. If lying Ted did not
approve of spreading the lie that Carson was dropping out he would have fired
his very dirty campaign manager. He didn't so he owns that lie too.
Jake Tapper of CNN was also Cruz's campaign manager?
Who knew?
-
I'm with you on this. I've never seen any evidence of Cruz lying that certain people here keep repeating as truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwVrfydjOI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwVrfydjOI)
-
Lying Ted is responsible for the lies by told by his campaign staff and lies in
his approved ads. Even lying Ted agrees with me on that. If lying Ted did not
approve of spreading the lie that Carson was dropping out he would have fired
his very dirty campaign manager. He didn't so he owns that lie too.
Come down out of the hills, Lt Onoda. The war is over.
Geez.
-
Do it is not. It is a flat out lie. Trump never used eminent domain to acquire property.
The Ted Cruz campaign commercial accusing Donald Trump of attempting to use eminent domain to acquire the property of an elderly grandmother who did not want to sell it to him, (which is the basis for this claim) is in fact true. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking)
I researched it. There is a grandmother. She owns (owned?) a house that Trump wanted. He did attempt to get the government to use eminent domain to force her out of her house.
This is Vera Coking. (The Grandmother)
(http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/04/vera-coking.jpg)
This is her house that Trump wanted.
(http://media.philly.com/images/jvera01z-6520.jpg)
The Court found against Trump's effort and this is what it looks like afterward.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/View_of_house_between_two_casinos_-_Town_of_Atlantic_City%2C_North_end_of_Absecon_Island%2C_South_of_Absecon_Channel%2C_Atlantic_City%2C_Atlantic_County%2C_NJ_HABS_NJ%2C1-ATCI%2C19-3_%28CT%29.tif/lossy-page1-432px-thumbnail.tif.jpg)
-
I'm with you on this. I've never seen any evidence of Cruz lying that certain people here keep repeating as truth.
Over at the other site I had dozens of people coming down on me, and all they did was keep repeating the allegation. None of them could show any proof of a Ted Cruz lie.
Of course it pissed off so many people, they pulled the thread and warned me that if I continued defending Cruz, I would get a suspension.
-
A little refresher on the Carson "dirty trick" for the revisionist history crowd.
CNN’s massively dishonest hit on Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) continued on Saturday night during the debate, when Cruz defended himself from accusations that his campaign had deliberately misinformed voters that Dr. Ben Carson was preparing to drop out of the race. Here’s what CNN originally reported just hours before the caucuses:
Tapper: “It’s very unusual, to announce that you’re going home to rest for a few days, not going on to the next site.”
Bash: “Very unusual…Look, if you want to be president of the United States, you don’t go home to Florida. That’s just bottom line, that’s the end of the story. If you want to signal to your supporters that you’re hungry, that you want them to get out and campaign, you have to get out there too, it’s very unusual.”
Tapper: “Very unusual.”
Wolf Blitzer: “Very significant news indeed.”
CNN then tweeted: “After the #IACaucus, @RealBenCarson plans to take a break from campaigning.”
Based on all of this, everyone in the political world assumed – correctly, as it turns out – that Carson was preparing to end his campaign. And the next week, Carson fired half his staff.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/3202/cnn-started-carson-drop-out-rumor-now-theyre-lying-ben-shapiro
-
Lying Ted is responsible for the lies by told by his campaign staff and lies in
his approved ads.
No, it doesn't work that way. He chastised his staff and he took responsibility, but he himself did not knowingly tell a lie. For that matter, neither did his staff.
The Carson campaign stupidly sent out confusing messages that any reasonable person would interpret as Carson dropping out of the campaign. In fact, there is video on Youtube showing two "news" anchors saying this exact thing.
If the "news" anchors thought it meant Carson was dropping out, why is it unreasonable to believe that others would have also saw it that way? I saw that news broadcast last year, and I was thinking the exact same thing, and I have no connection with Ted Cruz or his staff.
Had I said "it looks like Carson is dropping out." would you have accused me of lying as well?
You have not proved that Ted Cruz lied. In fact, by accusing someone of lying when they did not actually lie, you yourself are spreading a lie.
-
Ben Carson on lying Ted. Skip to 1:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scmjcD1kyd4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scmjcD1kyd4)
-
Rumor has it that Trump supported Strange because his weasel son-in-law Kushner told him too.
Favor bank. Trump owed Strange.
Trump acted as though he knew Strange would lose and said he would support the winner.
-
The ad says Eminent Domain it made him (Trump) rich. It is another flat out lie
by the Cruz campaign. Watch it yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Besrlf1Gz-c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Besrlf1Gz-c)
-
I know whenever the name "Cruz" appears there's a tendency to ignore the meat of an article, so indulge me, please ....
Here's Bannon's strategy --- in other words, the money quote worthy of discussion:
The former White House chief strategist said he plans to recruit candidates who can run against the lawmakers who have not faithfully fought to enact Trump's agenda.
Bannon is fighting for the President and his agenda. Cruz, in this strategy, is a footnote --- a shiny object thrown in to get the attention of "conservatives".
I think it's also the clearest evidence that Sen. Cruz supports the President.
But carry on ....
-
Not if you want to ensure that the GOP House and Senate are cleared of members currently being extorted and blackmailed for closet skeletons....in the hands of our enemies.
Exhibit A: Senator Bob Corker :shrug:
I'm missing your point @DCPatriot ......
-
Over at the other site I had dozens of people coming down on me, and all they did was keep repeating the allegation. None of them could show any proof of a Ted Cruz lie.
Of course it pissed off so many people, they pulled the thread and warned me that if I continued defending Cruz, I would get a suspension.
It's so easy to prove that Cruz didn't lie.
-
While I'm not a Bannon fan, not only do we need to primary sitting Reps, we need to get conservatives as the nominee for these D+10 and less seats, especially those that Trump won.
58 or 60 seats in the Senate makes McCain, Collins, and Murkowski irrelevant.
-
While I'm not a Bannon fan, not only do we need to primary sitting Reps, we need to get conservatives as the nominee for these D+10 and less seats, especially those that Trump won.
58 or 60 seats in the Senate makes McCain, Collins, and Murkowski irrelevant.
That would be a fantastic thing to have happen, and if it happens because Bannon suggests certain Senators be primaried I'm good with that.
-
2016 Presidential Election ring a bell?
So you think Steve Bannnon is going to run for President?
Easy answers.
1) without the United States intervening on the global stage the horrors of the 20th century would have been significantly worse
I believe that is demonstrably wrong. In fact it is an exact consequence of our interfering with world affairs that caused most of the horrors of the 20th Century.
Woodrow Wilson getting us into World War II caused the Germans to lose the war. Had we stayed out of it, they would have won or tied. The British and the French would not have been able to force on them the devastating conditions that wrecked their economy and caused the rise of Hitler.
No Hitler, No World War II, No Holocaust, No Mao, No Khmer Rouge.
Americans staying out of World War I might have prevented Lenin's return to Russia, stopped the Holodomor, and all the suffering of the Russian people and the Eastern Block.
No Korean war, no Vietnam.
No Atomic bomb, no Nuclear proliferation.
Also no sexual revolution and no abortion.
Over 100 million dead would likely have been avoided.
You could not likely have achieved a worse loss of life in the 20th century than what we did experience, and all because we meddled in affairs that were none of our business.
2) tariff wars, inflation and the great depression
You think a "tariff war" caused the great depression? How about "easy credit", and the boom and bust conditions which are a normal part of traditional economic system?
You also leave out the fact that the Government meddling in the economy caused a momentary recession to prolong itself far longer than it would have had they used the same methodology as "Silent Cal" to deal with it.
3) Nationalism is exclusionary.
So are borders. In fact borders exist for the explicitly purpose of protecting those people within them as a "nation."
..it is the antithesis of Patriotism.
The word "Patriotism" is derived from the word "Pater", which is Latin for "Father." It literally means "love for the land of my father." It does not mean "Universal love for all lands."
nationalism gets you 1940's Germany and Italy.
Says who? You've been listening to too much left wing propaganda. Of course since it has been ubiquitous since Word War II, It's hardly your fault, but still you should not simply accept stuff the left says without a grain of salt.
The Communists seized upon the "nationalist" aspects of German and Italian Fascism as the cause of their fascism. No, the International Communists were just as Fascistic, but pointing out "Nationalism" gave them a means of distinguishing themselves from the obviously evil Nazis and Italian Fascists.
The Communists were in fact worse.
"Nationalism" was in fact the argument the North asserted to justify their effort to prevent independence of the South. Some would claim that in this case, "nationalism" was a good thing. Weren't you earlier defending the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments? Seems like they wouldn't have happened without this "Nationalist" fervor which was began in the 1860s.
..and the Soviet Union of the Cold War. U.S> Patriotism defeated all of those.
Patriotism and Nationalism are the same side of the same coin.
-
You must be clairvoyant, my friend 88devil
@DCPatriot
:laugh:
-
Ben Carson on lying Ted. Skip to 1:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scmjcD1kyd4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scmjcD1kyd4)
I like Ben Carson, but Ben Carson asserting that Ted Cruz is lying, does not make it true. Ben Carson was mistaken, but because of his emotions involved in the incident, he can be forgiven.
-
I'm missing your point @DCPatriot ......
1) It was just revealed yesterday, that Senator Corker failed to declare millions of $$$ in income over several years. This information was known early on in the Obama Administration, and enabled them to 'run' him like a police informant...hanging the threat of divulging his tax issues public. (Vote the way we instruct you to vote, or else your career and possibly your personal freedom are finished)
2) Bannon calling for ALL incumbent GOP members to be PRIMARIED, ensures a clean slate of possibly more GOP Congressman or Senators being blackmailed/extorted.
Hope that's a little clearer. ^-^
-
The ad says Eminent Domain it made him (Trump) rich. It is another flat out lie
by the Cruz campaign. Watch it yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Besrlf1Gz-c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Besrlf1Gz-c)
It's not "flat out". It is not even close to being demonstrably incorrect. It is a possible exaggeration as to the extent, but most rational people do not expect campaign advertisements to give them "5 sigma" (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigmawhats-that/) levels of accuracy.
-
We need term limits
-
1) It was just revealed yesterday, that Senator Corker failed to declare millions of $$$ in income over several years. This information was known early on in the Obama Administration, and enabled them to 'run' him like a police informant...hanging the threat of divulging his tax issues public. (Vote the way we instruct you to vote, or else your career and possibly your personal freedom are finished)
2) Bannon calling for ALL incumbent GOP members to be PRIMARIED, ensures a clean slate of possibly more GOP Congressman or Senators being blackmailed/extorted.
Hope that's a little clearer. ^-^
Yes. Thx.
-
It's so easy to prove that Cruz didn't lie.
You would think so, but I have found that when most people make up their minds that they want to believe something, they are stubborn in clinging to what they wish to believe, even against a gale force wind of contradicting facts.
It's a fascinating phenomena, and i've read several articles on this quirk of human nature.
-
We need term limits
Yes.
-
You would think so, but I have found that when most people make up their minds that they want to believe something, they are stubborn in clinging to what they wish to believe, even against a gale force wind of contradicting facts.
It's a fascinating phenomena, and i've read several articles on this quirk of human nature.
@DiogenesLamp
I still wanna know why Ted's father helped Oswald.
/s
-
I like Ben Carson, but Ben Carson asserting that Ted Cruz is lying, does not make it true. Ben Carson was mistaken, but because of his emotions involved in the incident, he can be forgiven.
There are numerous way to lie, lying by omission is one way. The eminent domain ad
was the lie that turned me off on Cruz. The ad said and I quote "eminent domain it
made him (Trump) rich". Was just a flat out lie. Trump never made a penny via eminent
domain.
And Cruz was for legalization of illegals and even Rand Paul called him a liar over that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko0DI0RnH9c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko0DI0RnH9c)
-
So you think Steve Bannnon is going to run for President?
Didn't say that.
I believe that is demonstrably wrong. In fact it is an exact consequence of our interfering with world affairs that caused most of the horrors of the 20th Century.
Really? We isolated ourselves during WW I until the very end...once we entered it ended...we went all isolationist again during the years between the two world wars and you had Hitler Stalin Mussolini and Tojo.
How much farther would communism have spread had we not intervened? There'd be a unified COMMUNIST Korea...the Russians and the Chinese would have spread that particularly evil cancer farther around the globe than they already have had we not opposed them and supported countries that didn't want to live under it's brutal yoke.
Woodrow Wilson getting us into World War II caused the Germans to lose the war. Had we stayed out of it, they would have won or tied. The British and the French would not have been able to force on them the devastating conditions that wrecked their economy and caused the rise of Hitler.
Wilson didn't get us into WWII. That was 20 years after he served.
No Hitler, No World War II, No Holocaust, No Mao, No Khmer Rouge.
That's crap. Total revision of history and the events that took place that caused all of those things to happen.
Americans staying out of World War I might have prevented Lenin's return to Russia, stopped the Holodomor, and all the suffering of the Russian people and the Eastern Block.
The Russian Revolution was already well underway before we entered the war. Check your history.
No Korean war, no Vietnam.
Again you're delusional.
The Norks attacked the South SPECIFICALLY because we left them off of a list of countries we counted as ones where we'd help out. The Communists took this as a sign they could attack and we wouldn't defend the Rhee government and the South Korean People.
No Atomic bomb, no Nuclear proliferation.
Again complete bullsh*t. The Germans were already working on the bomb...they even had airborne delivery vehicles long before we ever conducted our tests at Los Alamos.
You're revisionist version of history on these matters is every bit "blame America First" as Obama's was and the Liberals is today.
Also no sexual revolution and no abortion.
Over 100 million dead would likely have been avoided.
You could not likely have achieved a worse loss of life in the 20th century than what we did experience, and all because we meddled in affairs that were none of our business.
You think a "tariff war" caused the great depression? How about "easy credit", and the boom and bust conditions which are a normal part of traditional economic system?
You also leave out the fact that the Government meddling in the economy caused a momentary recession to prolong itself far longer than it would have had they used the same methodology as "Silent Cal" to deal with it.
So are borders. In fact borders exist for the explicitly purpose of protecting those people within them as a "nation."
The word "Patriotism" is derived from the word "Pater", which is Latin for "Father." It literally means "love for the land of my father." It does not mean "Universal love for all lands."
Says who? You've been listening to too much left wing propaganda. Of course since it has been ubiquitous since Word War II, It's hardly your fault, but still you should not simply accept stuff the left says without a grain of salt.
The Communists seized upon the "nationalist" aspects of German and Italian Fascism as the cause of their fascism. No, the International Communists were just as Fascistic, but pointing out "Nationalism" gave them a means of distinguishing themselves from the obviously evil Nazis and Italian Fascists.
The Communists were in fact worse.
"Nationalism" was in fact the argument the North asserted to justify their effort to prevent independence of the South. Some would claim that in this case, "nationalism" was a good thing. Weren't you earlier defending the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments? Seems like they wouldn't have happened without this "Nationalist" fervor which was began in the 1860s.
The stupid is so strong in this that it doesn't even merit comment. I'm just gonna leave it there for people to point and laugh at.
Patriotism and Nationalism are the same side of the same coin.
Not even close.
-
It's not "flat out". It is not even close to being demonstrably incorrect. It is a possible exaggeration as to the extent, but most rational people do not expect campaign advertisements to give them "5 sigma" (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigmawhats-that/) levels of accuracy.
@DiogenesLamp
Yes it is a flat out lie. Please show me where Trump made his wealth via eminent domain, as the Cruz ad claimed. "Eminent domain, it made him (Trump) rich"
-
@DiogenesLamp
Yes it is a flat out lie. Please show me where Trump made his wealth via eminent domain, as the Cruz ad claimed. "Eminent domain, it made him (Trump) rich"
Where is the link to that alleged quote?
-
Where is the link to that alleged quote?
see 59
-
There are numerous way to lie, lying by omission is one way. The eminent domain ad
was the lie that turned me off on Cruz. The ad said and I quote "eminent domain it
made him (Trump) rich". Was just a flat out lie. Trump never made a penny via eminent
domain.
And you know this how? Asserting something that you do not know to be true is also a form of lying.
Trump certainly tried in this one case we discovered. How do we know that he didn't try this before and succeed at it?
-
Didn't say that.
It was implicit in your example of Trump doing it. Trump did it through running for President. What other lesson were we to learn from the example of Trump?
-
It was implicit in your example of Trump doing it. Trump did it through running for President. What other lesson were we to learn from the example of Trump?
No you asked how someone could co-opt Conservatism. Trump did it...with the help of Steve Bannon at Breitbart and Rupert Murdoch at Fox News.
You asked...I answered. Now you're reading things into what I said that aren't there.
-
And you know this how? Asserting something that you do not know to be true is also a form of lying.
Trump certainly tried in this one case we discovered. How do we know that he didn't try this before and succeed at it?
He tried at least one other time that we know of in Bridgeport, CT. a year After his kerfuffle with Vera Coking.
-
Eminent domain has been legal since the country was formed.
-
Yeah, Failure Don lost again, when he tried to kick out old Vera Coking. Typical for him.
Trump never made a penny via eminent domain.
So Failure Don lied?
Interesting.
I had believed where he bragged about how he'd used eminent domain a lot and how great it supposedly was for people. Are you saying his projects were failures and didn't make him money?
I guess that would be typical for Failure Don.
-
And you know this how? Asserting something that you do not know to be true is also a form of lying.
Trump certainly tried in this one case we discovered. How do we know that he didn't try this before and succeed at it?
Since you believe the lie that Trump wealth is a result of using eminent domain to
steal property from old widows it is up to you to provide proof. I'm not going to
waste my time trying to prove a negative.
-
Really? We isolated ourselves during WW I until the very end...once we entered it ended...we went all isolationist again during the years between the two world wars and you had Hitler Stalin Mussolini and Tojo.
Until the very end, when we butted in, created a condition that shouldn't have happened, and that condition caused all the subsequent disaster that no one could have predicted.
American intervention caused the German economy to wreck. The resulting despair caused the rise of Hitler. Hitler caused World War II.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/42/3a/da/423ada605df5a6b37206c277e4100252.jpg)
"Work, Freedom and Bread."
How much farther would communism have spread had we not intervened? There'd be a unified COMMUNIST Korea...the Russians and the Chinese would have spread that particularly evil cancer farther around the globe than they already have had we not opposed them and supported countries that didn't want to live under it's brutal yoke.
There is a good chance that had we stayed out of World War I, there may never have been a communist menace. It is as a result of word reaching the Germans of America's entry into the war that they decided to send Lenin to Russia.
Had there been no American entry into the war, perhaps the Germans would have decided not to smuggle him back to Russia.
That's crap. Total revision of history and the events that took place that caused all of those things to happen.
No it isn't. Hitler rose to power as a consequence of the economic despair in Germany. Without him promising to put Germany back to work and solving it's economic problems, he would have had no winning message. Without an economic disaster, he couldn't have blamed the "Jews" for their economic woes.
The Russian Revolution was already well underway before we entered the war. Check your history.
Check yours. It didn't turn Communist until Lenin got there and took it over. Without Lenin Russia would have had a Republican revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Republic) more like our own.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Flag_of_Russia_%28Kremlin.ru%29.svg/125px-Flag_of_Russia_%28Kremlin.ru%29.svg.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Russian_coa_1917.svg/85px-Russian_coa_1917.svg.png)
Because Lenin got there and took control of it, he turned it hard communist.
Again you're delusional.
The Norks attacked the South SPECIFICALLY because we left them off of a list of countries we counted as ones where we'd help out. The Communists took this as a sign they could attack and we wouldn't defend the Rhee government and the South Korean People.
Without a Communist China, there would have been no Communism in North Korea. Without a German Defeat in World War I, there would have been no Communist China.
Again complete bullsh*t. The Germans were already working on the bomb...they even had airborne delivery vehicles long before we ever conducted our tests at Los Alamos.
The Germans were not working on an atomic bomb in 1917 when the US meddled in Europe's war. You can't use events that hadn 't happened yet to argue backwards in time.
If the US hadn't meddled, there would never have been a World War II, (because Hitler would never have arisen to power) and so there never would have been either a US Manhattan Project, or a German Atom bomb project. (Uranprojekt)
You're revisionist version of history on these matters is every bit "blame America First" as Obama's was and the Liberals is today.
Blame America first? I'm not Blaming America for anything other than electing and following Idiot Liberals who get the nation to do stupid things like meddling in other people's affairs. Woodrow Wilson was a disaster. He was another one of those "Genius" Presidents that mucked things up far worse than any ordinary man would have.
He was one of those "Idiot Geniuses" that is the specific target of my tagline:
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
What we would have gotten had the US stayed out of World War I would have been a European Union dominated by Germany... which is exactly what we have now... but we would have gotten it without all the bloodshed.
Not even close.
So explain how Patriotism is different from Nationalism.
-
No you asked how someone could co-opt Conservatism. Trump did it...with the help of Steve Bannon at Breitbart and Rupert Murdoch at Fox News.
You asked...I answered. Now you're reading things into what I said that aren't there.
And how did Trump do it? By running for President!
Since "running for President" is how Trump did it, the only logical conclusion we are to draw from your statement is this is how Bannon would do it.
If you disagree, then explain how Bannon would co-opt the conservative movement without mentioning what Trump did. (Which was to run for President.)
-
The problem is that Brannon is no Conservative.
Where does one find YOUR litmus test for the definition of a "conservative?"
And next, point by point where does Bannon conform, or not conform to said litmus test?
As a pragmatic check, did you favor Strange of Moore, in Alabama's recent primary?
-
He tried at least one other time that we know of in Bridgeport, CT. a year After his kerfuffle with Vera Coking.
Exactly the point. "modus operandi" is the term given for a methodology that become a habitual. It is quite common in people to continue using a method that they have found to work before, and it becomes highly likely that if this has been provably done twice, then it was likely a "modus operandi", and could have been done even more than we already know.
This pattern of using eminent domain in efforts to seize property shifts the burden of proof to the other side in my opinion.
-
My Two Cents...... Bannon is about as glory hunting a nut as Trump.... after Roy Moore won in Alabama he tried to act like he (and he alone) was the reason for Moore winning.
Nope, Roy was gonna win and win big without Bannon/Palin sweeping in a few days to campaign. Just as Strange was going to lose no matter if Trump/Pence spent a week in Alabama campaigning for him. Roy was just that popular. I just found it silly how Bannon liked to feed his ego (and in that matter is the doppelganger of Trump). But I trust little of those willing to compromise on principle to win as Bannon did slanting his new site to full Trump during the election. Like Ann Coulter, principled up to actual time to put those fruits on the line.
@jpsb
Your examples of Cruz's lies sadden me. Nope, Cruz did not do anything wrong in Iowa, except as he pointed out perhaps not correcting CNN's mistake as soon as humanly possible (but it was too late). What was he guilty of? Paying attention to the latest news updates and actually campaigning hard. Something most of us here tend to also do.
It was disappointing to see Carson (probable with Trump's urging) use the victim card to get a few more weeks of political clout out of a game he knew he had no chance of winning. It really hurt my opinion of him tremendously (I already had reservations about his gun positions and abortion opinions especially his lack of acknowledging life at conception).
That said, I do agree that Trump did get a bum rap on the Eminent Domain thing. That ad was not 100% true. Perhaps less that 50% true. Did Trump attempt to take that lady's property via it, yes. When he lost though, he made due with it. Was he getting rich via it, No. Was it going to make him richer, perhaps somewhat. I would of not of ran that ad if I was Cruz.
From what I have seen @jpsb. Your posts get 4/5 bozos for truth. Yet I see you like to just pile on more bozo points the more you post.
-
Eminent domain has been legal since the country was formed.
Nobody is objecting to the concept of eminent domain. We are objecting to the abuse of eminent domain for a private company to seize other citizens' land.
The seizing of a citizen's property for the needs of the governing body is a legitimate principle. The seizing of a citizen's property to benefit other private citizens with only an indirect benefit to the government, (If that) is not.
-
Since you believe the lie that Trump wealth is a result of using eminent domain to
steal property from old widows it is up to you to provide proof. I'm not going to
waste my time trying to prove a negative.
When I looked this up last year, it took me all of 30 seconds to find the proof in the case of Vera Corking. I have been advised that there is another case in which Trump tried or succeeded in using eminent domain to seize someone's property.
Someone else up above said Trump bragged of doing this.
The Burden of proof has shifted to you. We have sufficient evidence to support the claim that evidence must now be presented to refute it.
-
My Two Cents...... Bannon is about as glory hunting a nut as Trump.... after Roy Moore won in Alabama he tried to act like he (and he alone) was the reason for Moore winning.
Bannon is a tool, but sometimes a useful one. We do need a bunch of good Reps to primary both Republicans and get nominated to run against incumbent Dems.
He won't have much effect on who runs I think, but for sure if he can be the impetus to draw interest to the '18 primaries with the idea of making McCain, Collins, and Murkowski irrelevant in the Senate, he will be useful in that regard.
-
Come down out of the hills, Lt Onoda. The war is over.
Geez.
Obscure, yet hillarious....
:rolling: :happyhappy:
-
Exactly the point. "modus operandi" is the term given for a methodology that become a habitual. It is quite common in people to continue using a method that they have found to work before, and it becomes highly likely that if this has been provably done twice, then it was likely a "modus operandi", and could have been done even more than we already know.
This pattern of using eminent domain in efforts to seize property shifts the burden of proof to the other side in my opinion.
Your opinion means squat. The burden of proof is always on the accretion not the
negation of an assertion. You claim Trump used eminent domain to seize property?
Prove it. All you have to do is find a few cases of Trump using eminent domain to
acquire his wealth.
If that were true, with as much scrutiny as Trump has been under, believe me, it would
have come up long ago.
I hope every one notices that I take the time to format my posts to make them
easily readable. IE you don't have to scroll left to read them.
-
When I looked this up last year, it took me all of 30 seconds to find the proof in the case of Vera Corking. I have been advised that there is another case in which Trump tried or succeeded in using eminent domain to seize someone's property.
Someone else up above said Trump bragged of doing this.
The Burden of proof has shifted to you. We have sufficient evidence to support the claim that evidence must now be presented to refute it.
You have yet to provide a SINGLE INSTANCE of Trump using eminent domain to seize
private property. Not a single one. The poster above does not know what he/she is
talking about and his/her post was so ridiculous I did not even brother to respond to
him/her.
-
Nobody is objecting to the concept of eminent domain. We are objecting to the abuse of eminent domain for a private company to seize other citizens' land.
The seizing of a citizen's property for the needs of the governing body is a legitimate principle. The seizing of a citizen's property to benefit other private citizens with only an indirect benefit to the government, (If that) is not.
The controversial use of eminent domain, that I am aware of when it is used for "redevelopment."
A city/county/district decides it has an area which is "blighted." In partnership with businesses, they seek to remediate that blight.
Along the way, certain buildings may stand in the way of that planned project.
In my own town, the local council decided to NOT use it, to take residential properties.
In the Kelo case, the USSC decided it was okay even to take residential property.
Eminent domain, controversy about it, numerous cases PREDATE Trump's Presidency.
-
Come down out of the hills, Lt Onoda. The war is over.
Geez.
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/1/17/1389955500068/eabb8957-2e75-4f3e-8aab-a431f54e17d5-1360x2040.jpeg?w=880&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=075633cec8b71429495e84c9d48e2522)
And we thought this guy was stubborn...
-
You have yet to provide a SINGLE INSTANCE of Trump using eminent domain to seize
private property. Not a single one. The poster above does not know what he/she is
talking about and his/her post was so ridiculous I did not even brother to respond to
him/her.
I guess Scotland doesn't count because they call it something different there? Or we just didn't care because it's not Americans he profited off of, though his profit seems to change depending on the country he is reporting it to.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-top-example-of-foreign-experience-a-scottish-golf-course-losing-millions/2016/06/22/12ae9cb0-1883-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html
I am curious also as to how many times a municipality stepped in and did the deed so that Trump could build one of his developments.
-
Instead of thanking Bannon for trying to unseat liberal candidates, this site devolves into naïve ad infinitum discussion of real estate development.
Countless millions of homes and commercial facilities were permitted, by thousands of civic entities, which aided the builder to construct his/her projects, and which provided homes and businesses with facilities to pursue the American Dreams.
In rare instances controversy arose over eminent domain, but that is the exception, not the rule.
Some of you sound like wealth envious liberals, not common sense grounded people or conservatives either.
-
Instead of thanking Bannon for trying to unseat liberal candidates, this site devolves into naïve ad infinitum discussion of real estate development.
Countless millions of homes and commercial facilities were permitted, by thousands of civic entities, which aided the builder to construct his/her projects, and which provided homes and businesses with facilities to pursue the American Dreams.
In rare instances controversy arose over eminent domain, but that is the exception, not the rule.
Some of you sound like wealth envious liberals, not common sense grounded people or conservatives either.
Thank you, @truth_seeker :patriot:
-
Worth Repeating for you, since you brought up the Ben Carson thing @jpsb
Lyin Ted
Cruz's email stated, verbatim:
Dear ___,
Breaking News. The press is reporting that Dr. Ben Carson is taking time off from the campaign trail after Iowa and making a big announcement next week.
Please inform any Carson caucus goers of this news and urge them to caucus for Cruz.
EACH of those statements was factually accurate. Not false in the slightest.
Here are the relevant portions of the transcript from the CNN report:
Tapper: Thanks, Wolf. Well, CNN has learned some news about the man who, at least according to polls, is in fourth place here in Iowa. Now, Dana, a week from tomorrow, we’re all going to be doing this again for the New Hampshire primary. So almost every single candidate is going to be going directly from here to New Hampshire to campaign–except for the man in fourth place, who a few months ago was in first place here, Dr. Ben Carson. What have we learned?
Bash: That’s right. We should say that our Chris Moody is breaking this news, that Ben Carson is going to go back to Florida, to his home, regardless of how he does tonight here in Iowa. He’s going to go there for several days. And then afterwards, he’s not going to go to South Carolina. He’s not going to go to New Hampshire. He’s going to come to Washington, D.C., and he’s going to do that because the National Prayer Breakfast is on Thursday
. . .
Bash: Look, if you want to be President of the United States, you don’t go home to Florida. I mean, that’s bottom line. That’s the end of the story. If you want to signal to your supporters that you want it, that you’re hungry for it, that you want them to get out and and campaign, you’ve got to be out there doing it too. And he’s not doing it. it’s very unusual.
The Cruz email went out approximately 4 minutes before the Iowa Caucuses opened and did not effect the outcome of the Caucus. Carson ended up with approximately 17,000 votes and that result outperformed his polling by 1.6%. Carson could not overtake Rubio for third place as he would have needed more than twice his vote total to do so - Rubio lead Carson by about 25,000 votes.
Trump, of course, lied when he claimed that Cruz's email stole the election in Iowa. Trump lied then as he does now. It's his nature.
Ted didn't lie. Period. The fact that you are so willing to stare myopically at the one statement by Ted in order to imagine a lie yet overlook the near daily lying by Trump shows that you have zero integrity and are hopelessly irrational.
@corbe is right
I saw that CNN exchange live, by chance, eating at a Mexican restaurant that had it on.
I turned to my wife and said "Wow, look at that! It looks like Carson is dropping out of the race!"
On CNN.....
What Cruz is guilty of is passing along the CNN story, nothing more.
CNN getting it wrong does not make Cruz some sort of liar.
-
For those interested, I just posted a thread with a link to Steve Bannon's interview with Hannity.
-
True enough, but I still like Bannon essentially saying that Cruz is the ONLY real principled Conservative in Washington. All others are expendable.
That is not what Bannon is saying.
He is saying that during the upcoming election Cruz is the only principled Conservative in the Senate.
He said nothing about others such as Lee.
-
BTW, only 8 GOP Senators are up for re-election in '18. They are:
Hatch
Barasso
Corker (retiring)
Cruz
Fischer
Flake
Heller
Wicker
Cruz is the only reliable conservative I know of.
-
That is not what Bannon is saying.
He is saying that during the upcoming election Cruz is the only principled Conservative in the Senate.
He said nothing about others such as Lee.
He said that it was not going to be "fixed" with just one election, but would take several.
Figured that's because not everybody is up for reelection in 2018...or even 2020.
-
@truth_seeker
"Instead of thanking Bannon for trying to unseat liberal candidates..."
Well, I'm not sure that is what Bannon is doing. Is he trying to unseat liberals or just trying to replace them with Trump and Bannon loyalists? I suspect the reason Cruz is being spared is because Cruz pledged his loyalty to Trump. The others have not. Would those who pledge loyalty to Trump be conservative? Well, maybe not. Trump supported the liberal Republican candidate in the Alabama special election. Do you think he cares about whether the candidate he and Bannon supports is a consrrvative? I don't believe so. I think he will support anyone who pledges fealty.
And then there is Trump himself. While candidate, he made promises like a conservative (repeal Obamacare, for example). But then there is the family leave plan he talked about sometime back. That is not conservative.
Trump might be a registered Republican, but he still has that New York liberalism from when he was a Democrat. I'm happy when he does things like get rid of the birth control mandate for emoloyers, for example. But I still can't trust him.
-
@truth_seeker
"Instead of thanking Bannon for trying to unseat liberal candidates..."
Well, I'm not sure that is what Bannon is doing. Is he trying to unseat liberals or just trying to replace them with Trump and Bannon loyalists? I suspect the reason Cruz is being spared is because Cruz pledged his loyalty to Trump. The others have not. Would those who pledge loyalty to Trump be conservative? Well, maybe not. Trump supported the liberal Republican candidate in the Alabama special election. Do you think he cares about whether the candidate he and Bannon supports is a consrrvative? I don't believe so. I think he will support anyone who pledges fealty.
And then there is Trump himself. While candidate, he made promises like a conservative (repeal Obamacare, for example). But then there is the family leave plan he talked about sometime back. That is not conservative.
Trump might be a registered Republican, but he still has that New York liberalism from when he was a Democrat. I'm happy when he does things like get rid of the birth control mandate for emoloyers, for example. But I still can't trust him.
I googled your claim. Can't find Cruz pledging fealty to Trump anywhere. Could it be Trump thinks Cruz is more supportive of his agenda and so would be a bigger help, if not actually obstruct, getting it passed?
-
I guess since this became the "prove to me Cruz doesn't eat babies" thread, we have lost track.
Cruz has tried to seize the opportunity of having both houses and the White house as an opportunity that may not come again.
There are 3-4 republican senators that seem to stand in the way.
Corker will be gone, and I hope a Conservative replaces him.
Yet, McCain, Murkowski, Collins remain.
He has pushed Healthcare and Tax Reform proposals forward, in line with what the white house wants.
I have no problem primary-ing people who won't fight for what we've asked them to.
Cruz was pretty upset when the McDaniels in Mississippi thing happened, and I think Bannon knows that Cruz was supporting the best candidate (most conservative), and not the incumbent there.
Is Bannon a conservative, or an opportunist?
I'm not sure, evidence is out there to support both claims.
Andrew Brietbart was a conservative, and I sure miss that guy.
-
I guess Scotland doesn't count because they call it something different there? Or we just didn't care because it's not Americans he profited off of, though his profit seems to change depending on the country he is reporting it to.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-top-example-of-foreign-experience-a-scottish-golf-course-losing-millions/2016/06/22/12ae9cb0-1883-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html
I am curious also as to how many times a municipality stepped in and did the deed so that Trump could build one of his developments.
No Scotland does not count, last time I checked Scotland was all down with Muslims and Marxism all the good Scots left Scotland in the 1900's. Screw 21th century Scotland.
-
I googled your claim. Can't find Cruz pledging fealty to Trump anywhere. Could it be Trump thinks Cruz is more supportive of his agenda and so would be a bigger help, if not actually obstruct, getting it passed?
How about when Cruz endorsed Trump? Trump lied and humiliated Cruz throughout the campaign and Cruz all but bowed down and kissed his ring.
Much as I like Cruz, I can't trust him now either. In the end, he's just another politician.
-
How about when Cruz endorsed Trump? Trump lied and humiliated Cruz throughout the campaign and Cruz all but bowed down and kissed his ring.
Much as I like Cruz, I can't trust him now either. In the end, he's just another politician.
Endorsing and pledging fealty are two totally different things.
And if Cruz's endorsement was necessary to prevent Clinton from winning I'm damn glad he did.
-
In the end, he's just another politician.
They are all politicians by definition. It's just that this one thinks more like me then the rest of the morons. That makes Lyin' Ted a good egg in my book.
-
How about when Cruz endorsed Trump? Trump lied and humiliated Cruz throughout the campaign and Cruz all but bowed down and kissed his ring.
Much as I like Cruz, I can't trust him now either. In the end, he's just another politician.
Wait, what? (http://i61.tinypic.com/2z8zzb8.jpg) Cruz endorsed Trump you say? What the hell was all the crap from the Trump side about Cruz NOT endorsing Trump at the convention because he told people to vote their conscience. Now all of sudden Cruz not only endorsed Trump but to quote you "Cruz all but bowed down and kissed his ring". I'll be back, I need to get my muck boots on.
-
No Scotland does not count, last time I checked Scotland was all down with Muslims and Marxism all the good Scots left Scotland in the 1900's. Screw 21th century Scotland.
Glad to hear that it's OK for Trump to screw people over if it's somewhere you are unhappy with. I'm sure if you just explained that to all the people in Scotland that Trump lied to and screwed over they would be just fine then.
-
Wait one dingdang minute! I read the entire article and 3 pages of comments wrong! I thought this was about @Frank Cannon wanting to challenge every republican incumbent except Cruz. Man, that clears things up immensely.
-
Wait, what? (http://i61.tinypic.com/2z8zzb8.jpg) Cruz endorsed Trump you say? What the hell was all the crap from the Trump side about Cruz NOT endorsing Trump at the convention because he told people to vote their conscience. Now all of sudden Cruz not only endorsed Trump but to quote you "Cruz all but bowed down and kissed his ring". I'll be back, I need to get my muck boots on.
I don't suppose its occurred to some of those few Trump supporters still stuck on the 'Lying Ted' meme that Bannon is trying to signal to them that the primaries are over, to shut the hell up and try to make common cause with Cruz's substantial base of support if they want to actually get anything done over the next three years.
-
Wait one dingdang minute! I read the entire article and 3 pages of comments wrong! I thought this was about @Frank Cannon wanting to challenge every republican incumbent except Cruz. Man, that clears things up immensely.
Yeah. This is about a guy named BANNON. The article posted late last night about me talks about how I want to challenge every incumbent Republican INCLUDING Cruz. My plan also has me as the actual opponent in all these Primaries.
-
Much as I like Cruz, I can't trust him now either. In the end, he's just another politician.
You appear to be catching on. They ALL are politicians, above all. I have advocated that realistic portrayal of them since before the primaries last year.
-
How about when Cruz endorsed Trump? Trump lied and humiliated Cruz throughout the campaign and Cruz all but bowed down and kissed his ring.
Much as I like Cruz, I can't trust him now either. In the end, he's just another politician.
Oh for Pete's sake ... Good Grief!!! For the umpteenth million time, Cruz met with Trump and Trump gave him a list of conservative justices and from that list he promised Cruz that he would nominate them to the bench. Cruz afterwards stated that he was voting for Trump to ensure that a conservative was seated on the bench. I know for a fact from the numerous scripted phone calls I made to various different states on behalf of Cruz the concern of seating conservatives justices was a priority of his. He didn't bow down and kiss anybody's ring, he did what he felt was best for the country.
-
Oh for Pete's sake ... Good Grief!!! For the umpteenth million time, Cruz met with Trump and Trump gave him a list of conservative justices and from that list he promised Cruz that he would nominate them to the bench. Cruz afterwards stated that he was voting for Trump to ensure that a conservative was seated on the bench. I know for a fact from the numerous scripted phone calls I made to various different states on behalf of Cruz the concern of seating conservatives justices was a priority of his. He didn't bow down and kiss anybody's ring, he did what he felt was best for the country.
Sorry, but I don't buy that official story.
I think Cruz was afraid Trump would ensure Cruz would not be re-elected. So he groveled.
-
Oh for Pete's sake ... Good Grief!!! For the umpteenth million time, Cruz met with Trump and Trump gave him a list of conservative justices and from that list he promised Cruz that he would nominate them to the bench. Cruz afterwards stated that he was voting for Trump to ensure that a conservative was seated on the bench. I know for a fact from the numerous scripted phone calls I made to various different states on behalf of Cruz the concern of seating conservatives justices was a priority of his. He didn't bow down and kiss anybody's ring, he did what he felt was best for the country.
Listen lady. Cruz haters are just gonna hate. It's what they do. It's a waste of time to bother with them.....unless you want to wind them up and refer to Cruz as "Lyin' Ted". Then it's fun.
-
Yeah. This is about a guy named BANNON. The article posted late last night about me talks about how I want to challenge every incumbent Republican INCLUDING Cruz. My plan also has me as the actual opponent in all these Primaries.
You can count on my vote.
-
Sorry, but I don't buy that official story.
I think Cruz was afraid Trump would ensure Cruz would not be re-elected. So he groveled.
I know Cruz was afraid of Hillary winning and seating liberals on the bench. He did what was best for country. Quite frankly, you can think whatever you want of Cruz. If the label 'Lyin Ted' makes you feel better, go for it.
-
Wait one dingdang minute! I read the entire article and 3 pages of comments wrong! I thought this was about @Frank Cannon wanting to challenge every republican incumbent except Cruz. Man, that clears things up immensely.
:silly: :silly: :beer: :beer: ...and dingdang to ya!
-
He said that it was not going to be "fixed" with just one election, but would take several.
Figured that's because not everybody is up for reelection in 2018...or even 2020.
If you are interested in his actual words, here they are. You are incorrect that he said that Cruz is the only Senator he will not take on in a primary. That is only for the 2018 primary.
WATCH: Steve Bannon Declares 'War' on All 2018 Senate Incumbents Except Cruz
He said there are only a handful of senators who support Trump, and that he intends to bankroll primary opponents to every 2018 Republican senator except Ted Cruz of Texas.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/09/steve-bannon-hannity-bob-corker-and-establishment-gop-must-be-voted-out
-
How about when Cruz endorsed Trump? Trump lied and humiliated Cruz throughout the campaign and Cruz all but bowed down and kissed his ring.
Much as I like Cruz, I can't trust him now either. In the end, he's just another politician.
What exactly did Cruz do that mimicked what you said he did? Support the GOP nominee? Is that bowing down and kissing rings?
You seem to distort mightedly.
-
Listen lady. Cruz haters are just gonna hate. It's what they do. It's a waste of time to bother with them.....unless you want to wind them up and refer to Cruz as "Lyin' Ted". Then it's fun.
I agree with you. Ted is a decent guy who I have met over a friend's house, and his family is adorable.
Ted is so good he scares people, and I think we can see some scared ones on this thread.
-
:silly: :silly: :beer: :beer: ...and dingdang to ya!
888high58888
-
I agree with you. Ted is a decent guy who I have met over a friend's house, and his family is adorable.
Ted is so good he scares people, and I think we can see some scared ones on this thread.
I have known Ted Cruz since his days as Solicitor General for the state of Texas. He has never once lied to me. I know lots of people and can count on one hand the number I can say that about.
-
DCPatriot observes:
"True enough, but I still like Bannon essentially saying that Cruz is the ONLY real principled Conservative in Washington"
I don't want "principled" politicians.
I want steamrollers who will roll right over the other side and crush them flat.
How's dat?
(http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_edin_t/0_edinburgh_transport_steam_roller_1960s.jpg)
-
I have known Ted Cruz since his days as Solicitor General for the state of Texas. He has never once lied to me. I know lots of people and can count on one hand the number I can say that about.
Well I've known Lyin' Ted since he was my Au Pair. He used to steal change out of the ash tray in my aunts Electra and drink my dads booze and top it off with tap water. When he got caught, he blamed me and my parents sent me to an all female boarding school in the Alps. Ted is GD AWESOME!!!!!
-
Well I've known Lyin' Ted since he was my Au Pair. He used to steal change out of the ash tray in my aunts Electra and drink my dads booze and top it off with tap water. When he got caught, he blamed me and my parents sent me to an all female boarding school in the Alps. Ted is GD AWESOME!!!!!
Jeez Frank, I just saw your picture. You were right, you are exactly as I imagined.
-
Sorry, but I don't buy that official story.
I think Cruz was afraid Trump would ensure Cruz would not be re-elected. So he groveled.
What happened was the next day after his convention speech the Texas delegation
"requested" a meeting with Cruz and gave him hell. Most likely told him he would be
primaried (by Dan Patrick?) if he broke his pledge to support the GOP nominee no matter
who that nominee was. Cruz then found a convenient excuse to support Trump. One
of the reason I like Cruz, with enough conservative heat Cruz sees always the light.
-
Ted is so good he scares people, and I think we can see some scared ones on this thread.
QFT
-
I don't want "principled" politicians.
I want steamrollers who will roll right over the other side and crush them flat.
How's dat?
You want Republicans who treat the rule of law and the Constitution with the same dislike as the Democrats.
You could care less about saving the country...you just want revenge and payback.
Sad...
-
You've got to love Cruz's position on issues, instead of these blowhards who would abandon social conservative issues for their own selfish interest. Same with 2nd amendment rights, safe and secure with Trump.
-
You've got to love Cruz's position on issues, instead of these blowhards who would abandon social conservative issues for their own selfish interest. Same with 2nd amendment rights, safe and secure with Trump.
(http://www.pophangover.com/images/facepalm-5.jpg)
-
Jeez Frank, I just saw your picture. You were right, you are exactly as I imagined.
Scary, isn't he?
-
I admire how Cruz doesn't just throw social issues under the bus, like some do.
-
You want Republicans who treat the rule of law and the Constitution with the same dislike as the Democrats.
You could care less about saving the country...you just want revenge and payback.
Sad...
No, you could care less about saving the country, those words describe you.
-
[img]http <snipped>
Buzz off Liberal Troll.
-
Buzz off Liberal Troll.
Last act of a desperate idiot...referring to Conservatives as "Liberal Trolls".
Pathetic.
-
As disheartening as it may be, I am starting to read this thread solely for the entertainment value.
(http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Butt-Fight.gif)
(http://p.fod4.com/p/media/0e9a643e03/6XAMCFOQ6C2jPqlq0MI6_f1.gif)
-
Jeez Frank, I just saw your picture. You were right, you are exactly as I imagined.
Ruggedly handsome, right?
-
Ruggedly handsome, right?
There's something about your pic that makes me feel like I should ask for it. I cannot explain further than that.
-
There's something about your pic that makes me feel like I should ask for it.
Inquiring minds want to know, ask for what?
-
There's something about your pic that makes me feel like I should ask for it. I cannot explain further than that.
Well if you are wearing Donna Karan, PM me. As @CatherineofAragon knows I'm a label whore.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/75/91/93759171f79df8bbbd3468039e8a6de9--womens-fashion-outfits-fashion-wear.jpg)
-
Inquiring minds want to know, ask for what?
Beer bottles and attractive plants.
-
Well if you are wearing Donna Karan, PM me. As @CatherineofAragon knows I'm a label whore.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/75/91/93759171f79df8bbbd3468039e8a6de9--womens-fashion-outfits-fashion-wear.jpg)
I actually do have that suit, but I think it looks better with these shoes.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCCHzXncRMA/TrLFhZQ-f_I/AAAAAAAABtQ/LJ1dqlIow7A/s1600/UGG+BOOTS1.jpg)
-
I actually do have that suit, but I think it looks better with these shoes.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCCHzXncRMA/TrLFhZQ-f_I/AAAAAAAABtQ/LJ1dqlIow7A/s1600/UGG+BOOTS1.jpg)
Uggs isn't the brand of those boots. It's the sound people make at you when you are wearing them.
-
Uggs isn't the brand of those boots. It's the sound people make at you when you are wearing them.
Right? Like "Ugg, I need to get me a pair of those awesome boots."
-
Right? Like "Ugg, I need to get me a pair of those awesome boots."
If that's the case, you probably also think that when people say "blah" it's a term of endearment.
-
You've got to love Cruz's position on issues, instead of these blowhards who would abandon social conservative issues for their own selfish interest. Same with 2nd amendment rights, safe and secure with Trump.
Speaking of blowhards who abandon social conservative issues. Funny how in this thread you champion Trump and his alleged protection of the 2nd Amendment.
But you're singing quite the different tune on a thread you started a couple days ago.
TomSea
Hero Member
Posts: 15,512
3 in custody after assault-style rifle found in vehicle leaving O'Hare
All we need, another gun nut shooting a bunch of innocent people down.
Legal gun owner doing nothing wrong...but you refer to him as a "gun nut".
Hard to keep your gun grabbing feelings hidden all the time isn't it?
-
Right? Like "Ugg, I need to get me a pair of those awesome boots."
They (boots) look comfy but I don't think they go well with that suit. Wasn't Donna
in the news the other day defending Harvey? Oh, I get it that the boots were a joke,
I chuckled when I read that post.
-
If that's the case, you probably also think that when people say "blah" it's a term of endearment.
Now you're just trying to get me to believe that all those people were being mean.
-
Now you're just trying to get me to believe that all those people were being mean.
If you are rockin' an RBF and schlepping around in a skirt suit and Uggs, I'm guessing no one ever makes a peep in your presence. Probably don't even make direct eye contact.
-
If you are rockin' an RBF and schlepping around in a skirt suit and Uggs, I'm guessing no one ever makes a peep in your presence. Probably don't even make direct eye contact.
Again I'm getting this vibe like there's something abnormal about that.
-
Again I'm getting this vibe like there's something abnormal about that.
Not in my world sister.....except for your inappropriate footwear. I would be making direct eye contact on that shit.
-
Not in my world sister.....except for your inappropriate footwear. I would be making direct eye contact on that shit.
When I was in high school one of the jocks thought it was so funny that I had the same look on my face as the woman in the movie Misery. They all laughed and laughed about that.... for a while. Until I showed them my mom's Silhouette. Then who do you think had the last laugh?
-
When I was in high school one of the jocks thought it was so funny that I had the same look on my face as the woman in the movie Misery. They all laughed and laughed about that.... for a while. Until I showed them my mom's Silhouette. Then who do you think had the last laugh?
I wouldn't be laughing. You know the rear seats in a Silhouette are easily removed? Leaves you with enough flat load space to carry say....a mattress..... and possibly some wood.
(https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/oldsmobile/silhouette/1990/oem/1990_oldsmobile_silhouette_passenger-minivan_base_o_oem_1_500.jpg)
You said you have a designer suit. Do you still have access to the car?
-
I wouldn't be laughing. You know the rear seats in a Silhouette are easily removed? Leaves you with enough flat load space to carry say....a mattress..... and possibly some wood.
(https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/oldsmobile/silhouette/1990/oem/1990_oldsmobile_silhouette_passenger-minivan_base_o_oem_1_500.jpg)
You said you have a designer suit. Do you still have access to the car?
Let me tell you those seats were not easily removed, I don't care what the Nimoy bitch said. Talk about a bladder buster.
-
Let me tell you those seats were not easily removed, I don't care what the Nimoy bitch said. Talk about a bladder buster.
Oddly enough Ted Bundy had the same complaint about taking the passenger seat out of his Beetle. He was big on extra "hauling" space.
(http://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/5f59523d-6a90-40b7-8b15-d9fd362c1433/635345850022057213_TEDBUNDY3.standalone.prodaffiliate.39.jpg)
-
As disheartening as it may be, I am starting to read this thread solely for the entertainment value.
(http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Butt-Fight.gif)
(http://p.fod4.com/p/media/0e9a643e03/6XAMCFOQ6C2jPqlq0MI6_f1.gif)
I think that's the right way to do it.