Ted Cruz said Thursday that those who contributed to the rise of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will have to "bear that responsibility going forward."
Cruz appeared Thursday evening on the Houston-based "Michael Berry Show" and was asked whether he thought he was treated fairly in the GOP primary, with the host mentioning Fox News....
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/279777-cruz-more-than-a-few-responsible-for-trump
Ted Cruz said Thursday that those who contributed to the rise of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will have to "bear that responsibility going forward."
No he wasn't treated fairly. I no longer visit FoxNew.com or Drudge.
No one else is either. I don;t know what the Trump Reports numbers are over last year but FOX is now in 2nd place to CNN of all place for 2 months straight since they went in the tank for Donny.
I wonder if Fox thinks it was worth it. How many years was Fox News way ahead of CNN? But, they threw that all away to become the all Trump station.
. Cruz is absolutely 100% correct, everyone who is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump will bear that responsibility going forward.
#Never Trump Don't blame me. I support Cruz.
Yes, and Ted bears some of the responsibility. Right wing ideologues aren't popular with the voting public.
Cruz bears no responsibility. If you recall he opposed Trump.
#NeverTRump Ted Cruz. Reigniting the Promise of America.
So did a multitude of others. Ted was part of a congress that let down the citizens of this country.
Right wing ideologues aren't popular with the voting public.
No.
Marxist Communists and Populist Fascists are.
In a very short amount of time, the notion of liberty and individual freedom in this country will be as hated as loathed as Martin Shkreli is.
No actually Ted stood up to Congress and defended "We the People". He has defended the Constitution time and time again. I will continue to stand with Cruz and support him going forward. I don't feel he let the citizens of this country down, I see just the opposite.
Funny thing, you can tell a lot about people by the company they keep. #NeverTrump
:beer: Those who contributed to the rise of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will have to "bear that responsibility going forward."
- Ted Cruz
Just like Ron Paul. Unable to persuade his colleagues to support him. That is failure of leadership. That is a cold , hard fact.
Such bitterness. I'm embarrassed for him. **nononono*
Bitterness? Not at all. He's simply stating a fact.
No he wasn't treated fairly. I no longer visit FoxNew.com or Drudge.
I definitely don't see persuading colleagues using false pretenses, lies, bullying and verbal attacks as an accomplishment nor leadership. In fact, HITL*ER used similar "leadership". It's a funny thing, you can tell a lot about people by the company they keep. #NeverTrump
Bitterness? Not at all. He's simply stating a fact. :patriot:
Nono? Really? You keep getting smaller with each mindless post.
Cruz was treated like a red-headed stepchild by the GOP establishment, the DEMS, Fox News (in particular Sean Hannity) and the MSM. Ironically, the liberal media treated him at times better than conservative news. I find it quite disheartening and appalling when a member of our party stands up and defends our rights, and freedoms, including religious liberty, of "We the People" under the Constitution and is greatly chastised, ridiculed and attacked for doing so. Cruz is absolutely 100% correct, everyone who is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump will bear that responsibility going forward. I find it interesting that many members of Congress are now very reluctant to be associated with Trump and some are declining to be his VP. That speaks volumes. My question is, where were they when they very well could have easily voiced support for Cruz? When Cruz came back to the Senate, he was warmly received and applauded; certainly a change of tune.
Fifteen other candidates competed against Trump. None of those candidates were as vile and vulgar towards each other as Trump was to them. Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others. If we simply take a step back and look at the huge difference in character alone between Cruz and Trump it is equally disheartening that the masses would chose a bully over a gentlemen to lead our country and to set an example for our children. They chose someone who obviously lacks moral character over someone of great integrity. What does this say about the mindset of his supporters? To think that this is what newly acquired voters are drawn to is frightening. It indicates that we have become a society of bullies, liars, and cheaters who verbally abuse one another and that is now acceptable. All I can say now, is God, please help us!
#Never Trump Don't blame me. I support Cruz.
Can you tell us precisely what's small and mindless about it?
So did a multitude of others. Ted was part of a congress that let down the citizens of this country.
I'd say the people blindly supporting a fake conservative bear far more responsibility then someone who tried to fight but lost.
.And God help us, good people are falling for it.
Nono? Really? You keep getting smaller with each mindless post.
Just like Ron Paul. Unable to persuade his colleagues to support him. That is failure of leadership. That is a cold , hard fact.
You seriously believe we should screw principles because the message is not "clicking"?
Please tell me, in your magnanimous opinion, what it is you think he should have done more? What exactly should he have done? Give in to the GOPe's demands? Give up on his beliefs?
Fall in line in order to "win"?
Guess what, if you have to redefine what a win is, you've already lost.
Senator Cruz stood up to Washington and stood up to liberal policy after liberal policy.
And you have the GALL to sit and pontificate on his "failed leadership"? He has been a leader. An inspiring one at that. The "conservative" media abandoned us when it was most crucial for the shiny (rather disgusting really) object.
Very few men have done as much as he has for our conservative principles and ideals.
Who were all the Fox people who clearly supported Trump? I don't watch TV news but I know from reading that Megyn Kelly doesn't appear to be a big Trump supporter.
Just like Ron Paul. Unable to persuade his colleagues to support him. That is failure of leadership. That is a cold , hard fact.
Bad people too. Trump's association with the alt-right will stain the GOP that endorses him. Buckley in the sixties excommunicated those scoundrels from the conservative movement. The modern GOP appears ready to embrace their candidate, and by extension their support, in the hope of winning an election. They won't, because enough good people can see what Trump represents. But the stain will remain, and all of us who claim to be conservative we need to explain ourselves in the future.
Cruz is absolutely right - in the future, after the transitory madness of 2016 is over, we will all be judged by whether we followed the mob or our own consciences.
Do what is right, folks, not what is easy.
Trump has been on every side of every issue, because he has no core values. It shows in his response to questions about his faith. It shows in his response to questions about the unborn.
Ted Cruz said Thursday that those who contributed to the rise of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will have to "bear that responsibility going forward."11513 True that
This is what is so distressing to me. Trump is a vile human being, a narcissist, and has no idea of how to deliver on his ridiculous promises that he keeps revising.
:amen: And we were given five opportunities [from God; I think He is testing us, gave us several choices] to get this right. Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz, all men who are married [to their first wives], are professed Christians, and 100% pro-life.
This is what is so distressing to me. Trump is a vile human being, a narcissist . . .
"Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others. If we simply take a step back and look at the huge difference in character alone between Cruz and Trump it is equally disheartening that the masses would chose a bully over a gentlemen to lead our country and to set an example for our children. They chose someone who obviously lacks moral character over someone of great integrity."
This is what is so distressing to me. Trump is a vile human being, a narcissist, and has no idea of how to deliver on his ridiculous promises that he keeps revising.
This may come as a shock, so brace yourself: There are more than a few million folks who consider Cruz to be the worst type of vile human being--a hypocrite of the worst order, using God as cover for his perpetual lies and cold, ruthless ambition. Ted Cruz (R-Canada), champion of nothing, is repellent.
Just thought you should know.
This may come as a shock, so brace yourself: There are more than a few million folks who consider Cruz to be the worst type of vile human being--a hypocrite of the worst order, using God as cover for his perpetual lies and cold, ruthless ambition. Ted Cruz (R-Canada), champion of nothing, is repellent.
Just thought you should know.
Not as many as KNOW Trump to be a bottom-feeding gutter dweller. For you to accuse Cruz of lying when Trump's lies manifest themselves DAILY is either ignorance or obtuseness.
Maybe it's gullibility. Trump is running a scam on you and you don't seem to know it.
This may come as a shock, so brace yourself: There are more than a few million folks who consider Cruz to be the worst type of vile human being--a hypocrite of the worst order, using God as cover for his perpetual lies and cold, ruthless ambition. Ted Cruz (R-Canada), champion of nothing, is repellent.
Just thought you should know.
:beer: Those who contributed to the rise of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will have to "bear that responsibility going forward."
- Ted Cruz
This may come as a shock, so brace yourself: There are more than a few million folks who consider Cruz to be the worst type of vile human being--a hypocrite of the worst order, using God as cover for his perpetual lies and cold, ruthless ambition. Ted Cruz (R-Canada), champion of nothing, is repellent.
Just thought you should know.
Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others.
Winning is good, and I assure you Trump is going to win, but I don't think it does us much good to "win" with people who won't enact our ideological agenda.
Very concerning that voters cannot discern truth from lies anymore. Trump is the lying conman not Cruz, which is precisely why Trump went after Cruz's integrity the way he did. Cruz is EVERYTHING Trump voters want Trump to be, yet they all bought into Trump's BIG LIE.
No.
Marxist Communists and Populist Fascists are.
In a very short amount of time, the notion of liberty and individual freedom in this country will be as hated as loathed as Martin Shkreli is.
We have several Jewish members here who are insulted every time the Hitler comparisons are made.....I wish members would please keep that in mind....they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT see any similarity.
Hindsight is 2020. Maybe we could all unite The Trump Believers, The Never Trumps and Trump Realists by agreeing to vote for Trump and then impeach him in two years, unless Trump convinces the Trump Realists and Never Trumps that he does, in fact, have integrity.
Trying to be a uniter, not divider. What do y'all think?
Such bitterness. I'm embarrassed for him. **nononono*
That would require sacrificing our Conservative Principles, which most of us have repented of doing for the last couple of decades.
Not as many as KNOW Trump to be a bottom-feeding gutter dweller. For you to accuse Cruz of lying when Trump's lies manifest themselves DAILY is either ignorance or obtuseness.
Maybe it's gullibility. Trump is running a scam on you and you don't seem to know it.
I don't consider that "bitterness" so much as a clear statement of fact.
It's petty and it's bitterness. And he's not helping himself. Cruz would do well to mourn his loss in private and give himself a chance to come to his senses before he goes on the record again.
Cruz needs to rebalance and remember a very sobering political fact: 53% voted for someone other than him in the Texas primary.
Me either. Been quite some time. And now he is thinking of Gingrich. How did anyone ever think that Trump isn't Establishment? Gingrich is like most Establishment politician there is. Oh but he is a FOX contributor. LOL!
You will have to realize that the Trumpets work strictly off emotions and feelings.
I completely reject the assertion that Newt Gingrich is "establishment." He's about as far from being "establishment" as you can get. We did have a balanced budget during his years as house speaker.
Gingrich was one of the very few who actually put up a fight, and who was actually effective at reducing government spending and reducing government influence?
Establishment? Not even close.
We have several Jewish members here who are insulted every time the Hitler comparisons are made.....I wish members would please keep that in mind....they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT see any similarity.
QuoteQuote from: Right_in_Virginia on Today at 12:45:00 AM
Cruz needs to rebalance and remember a very sobering political fact: 53% voted for someone other than him in the Texas primary.QuoteThat is a completely meaningless point. Clinton won by a plurality, but most people voted against him. The media still portrayed it as a mandate when it wasn't.
It is not meaningless. Cruz, in his home state, after campaigning there, after running ads there, saw 53% of the voters choose someone else. He'll want to figure this loss out before he begins campaigning for reelection.
This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton winning a plurality in a general election--this has everything to do with Cruz failing to reach 50% of the vote in the state that will vote him in or out of the Senate.
Yes, and Ted bears some of the responsibility. Right wing ideologues aren't popular with the voting public.You voted for Dukakis and Carter didn't you.
Well, after his ouster - he went soft and compromising.
Case-in-point:
The ESTABLISHMENT is all-in on the "climate change" hoax. So is Gingrich.
Are you kidding? That was his biggest asset in winning their preference. That was actually one of the things I liked about him. He puts up a fight. He bluntly states in no unclear language that his opposition is scum and unfit for office.
Whether it's true or not is completely irrelevant to it's effectiveness as a means of winning.
I am more angry at his Republican supporters who parroted all the lies he told about Cruz, but I could tell that when he was saying them, they were going to be effective.
I think most Trump supporters were more concerned about "winning" than ideology. Winning is good, and I assure you Trump is going to win, but I don't think it does us much good to "win" with people who won't enact our ideological agenda.
At least he will do some of it.... I hope.
It is not meaningless. Cruz, in his home state, after campaigning there, after running ads there, saw 53% of the voters choose someone else. He'll want to figure this loss out before he begins campaigning for reelection.
This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton winning a plurality in a general election--this has everything to do with Cruz failing to reach 50% of the vote in the state that will vote him in or out of the Senate.
No he wasn't treated fairly. I no longer visit FoxNew.com or Drudge.
Cruz was treated like a red-headed stepchild by the GOP establishment, the DEMS, Fox News (in particular Sean Hannity) and the MSM. Ironically, the liberal media treated him at times better than conservative news. I find it quite disheartening and appalling when a member of our party stands up and defends our rights, and freedoms, including religious liberty, of "We the People" under the Constitution and is greatly chastised, ridiculed and attacked for doing so. Cruz is absolutely 100% correct, everyone who is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump will bear that responsibility going forward. I find it interesting that many members of Congress are now very reluctant to be associated with Trump and some are declining to be his VP. That speaks volumes. My question is, where were they when they very well could have easily voiced support for Cruz? When Cruz came back to the Senate, he was warmly received and applauded; certainly a change of tune.:amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen:
Fifteen other candidates competed against Trump. None of those candidates were as vile and vulgar towards each other as Trump was to them. Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others. If we simply take a step back and look at the huge difference in character alone between Cruz and Trump it is equally disheartening that the masses would chose a bully over a gentlemen to lead our country and to set an example for our children. They chose someone who obviously lacks moral character over someone of great integrity. What does this say about the mindset of his supporters? To think that this is what newly acquired voters are drawn to is frightening. It indicates that we have become a society of bullies, liars, and cheaters who verbally abuse one another and that is now acceptable. All I can say now, is God, please help us!
#Never Trump Don't blame me. I support Cruz.
Are you pulling my leg here? So, let me get this straight, you don't mind having a president who has a vile, vulgar mouth and attacks others as your president that will represent this country around the World??
You don't mind a president who is a hollow drum, says nothing of substance on any issue and in fact has flip flopped on just about everything that he's stated.
Your ideological agenda? Are you serious? What ideological agenda would that be exactly??
When I read posts like yours, I have absolutely no doubt that Trump will be an absolute disaster for this country.
#NeverTrump
Texas has a big Hispanic population. Many of them wanted Rubio over Cruz. (Rubio got 17% in the Texas Primary) Were Rubio not in the race and not splitting the Hispanic vote, Cruz likely would have stomped Trump in Texas.
Once again, your point is meaningless when you look more extensively at the facts. You are presenting the weak Cruz win as having some significance vis a vis Trump. Nope, it's the fact that Cruz and Rubio split a large sub-demographic of Texas voters.
...and This may come as a shock to you....
People in Texas who have known Ted Cruz, for 20 years or more, say he is the exact same guy on the campaign trail, in the Senate, at home, or out having lunch.
Just the opposite of being hypocritical, they tell me what you see is what you get.
The people saying this are not all close personal friends of his, either.
They joke about this, actually, saying that while he has a great sense of humor, he could lighten up more often and not be so locked in all the time.
Just thought you should know....
We have several Jewish members here who are insulted every time the Hitler comparisons are made.....I wish members would please keep that in mind....they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT see any similarity.
But believing in global warming makes you establishment? That is a non-sequitur. No it doesn't.
It just means you are uninformed and that you are simply going along with the popular crowd.
Gingrich fought for us sufficiently that he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt, and even some leeway to make mistakes.
Cool. Nice story, he's got he's talking points memorized.
But you might want to remember that 53% of voters in Texas chose someone other than Ted Cruz in the GOP primary.
Just sayin'.
Getting back to the topic at hand, this is true of anyone you vote for. You vote for them you own the results. In 2008 many republicrats voted for the O simply because he was black. People like Colin Powell, who at one time was a respected republican. They own it, just like those who support Trump will own it good or bad.
Yes, and Ted bears some of the responsibility. Right wing ideologues aren't popular with the voting public.So are you saying right wing ideologues are not allowed to run for President and if they do they are responsible for getting us another left of center candidate? What I've gleaned from this election is that not only is a right wing ideologues not popular with the voting public, but also doesn't seem to be popular with alleged right wingers.
I'd say the people blindly supporting a fake conservative bear far more responsibility then someone who tried to fight but lost.
I am simply stating that 53% of the voters in Texas DID NOT WANT TED CRUZ.
You voted for Dukakis and Carter didn't you.
First off most Trump supporters aren't blind. We see the imperfect candidate. We also see a congress and POTUS that repeatedly let us down, lied and broke promises. The SOS over and over again. You accuse Trump of being a fake conservative because he isn't conservative enough for you. (NeverTrumps seem to believe they are perfect) He supports securing our borders, the 2nd Amendment, strengthening our military and fair trade. I'll take that over the broken promises, pledges and lies that we've been handed the last few decades. Trump is going to be the GOP candidate and there are a number of people more conservative and intelligent than you who support Trump's candidacy.
I read the very first line of your post ..."we also see a Congress and a POTUS that repeatedly let us down, lied and broke promises". With that statement, and with Trump knowingly flip-flopping on the issues, I am really trying to understand how you see him any differently? I'm not trying to argue a point, I am legitimately trying to understand your support of Trump. Everything that he has stated on issues, he has softened or backed off on...how is that not breaking a promise, a pledge or out and out lying? The words "Believe Me" and Trust Me I'll Do It" resonate very loudly right now. I honestly am not seeing the difference.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdZxdhpUMAAhgT6.jpg)
I read the very first line of your post ..."we also see a Congress and a POTUS that repeatedly let us down, lied and broke promises". With that statement, and with Trump knowingly flip-flopping on the issues, I am really trying to understand how you see him any differently? I'm not trying to argue a point, I am legitimately trying to understand your support of Trump. Everything that he has stated on issues, he has softened or backed off on...how is that not breaking a promise, a pledge or out and out lying? The words "Believe Me" and Trust Me I'll Do It" resonate very loudly right now. I honestly am not seeing the difference.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdZxdhpUMAAhgT6.jpg)
Dayton center McElvene, 20, dies after collapsing
Just saying..
I'm going to look so forward to pay extra for everything cause of Trump's tariffs.. Not.
It indicates that we have become a society of bullies, liars, and cheaters who verbally abuse one another and that is now acceptable. All I can say now, is God, please help us!
Is the price of a new 4X4 Ford Lariat or Chevy Silverado the same as it was 4 years ago?
Kool-Aid kills no matter who drinks it at the compound.
Sessions and Huckabee can pound sand.
Trumps own changing words and positions have caused me pause to consider voting for him, but it was the Trump Believers who validated my concerns and fears over what Nationalist Populist Fascism will bring to those who will not salute their lil' Benito.
The promises of execution for treason for daring to state as a Conservative we are not casting a ballot for Trump now abound out there.
As such, the mob can go it's own way. I'll have nothing to do with them.
The promises of execution for treason for daring to state as a Conservative we are not casting a ballot for Trump now abound out there.
:wtf!:
Kool-Aid kills no matter who drinks it at the compound.
Sessions and Huckabee can pound sand.
Trumps own changing words and positions have caused me pause to consider voting for him, but it was the Trump Believers who validated my concerns and fears over what Nationalist Populist Fascism will bring to those who will not salute their lil' Benito.
The promises of execution for treason for daring to state as a Conservative we are not casting a ballot for Trump now abound out there.
As such, the mob can go it's own way. I'll have nothing to do with them.
And what If I'm a Mac user '''
Then you have more problems than anyone but God can fix ;)
@INVAR
PM me immediately!! That's some heady sh*t you got going on there!
Maybe we can work something out?
:laugh:
You might find it funny, however I/likeminded people had one freeper say we should be taken out and shot for refusing to elect the guy that profits from the incineration of the dead babies his laws as Governor created. And if you browse FR, you will find several of your fellow Trump travelers openly claiming us non Trump people 'traitors' who should 'get the treatment' given to traitors.
In case your grasp of American history is lacking, I shall educate you. That 'treatment' is death.
So don't laugh too hard there sport. That is unless you agree with what the fanatical wing of your candidate's supporters are saying openly.
That poster has been ptoperly vetted?
You might find it funny, however I/likeminded people had one freeper say we should be taken out and shot for refusing to elect the guy that profits from the incineration of the dead babies his laws as Governor created. And if you browse FR, you will find several of your fellow Trump travelers openly claiming us non Trump people 'traitors' who should 'get the treatment' given to traitors.
In case your grasp of American history is lacking, I shall educate you. That 'treatment' is death.
So don't laugh too hard there sport. That is unless you agree with what the fanatical wing of your candidate's supporters are saying openly.
True Believers will never recognize nor admit any such threats exist, and when proven that such threats have been made, directs and subtle, they laugh it off as just paranoia.
On the Romney thing? Sure. Longtime freeper Lakeshark. July 14 - 16. I forget the date but it's I believe the 14th. Mods were made aware. Robinson was made aware by several people. It was later discussed on threads Robinson was on and there is no way he missed it even if he somehow did not read his email. That post remained and he suffered zero consequence. Check his FR post history. It's likely still there. Message was a reply to "Logical Me"
As for the Trump posters, They are all members in good standing over there. And remain so. Several of those comments were reposted here on the Welcome thread last week IIRC.
Romney thing? How long ago was that? I believed you were referring to something recent.
True Believers will never recognize nor admit any such threats exist, and when proven that such threats have been made, directs and subtle, they laugh it off as just paranoia.
It's sometimes difficult to track this down, but many cars with American nameplates include parts/components manufactured overseas. Tariffs will also add to the cost of steel and any other imported raw materials. So, it is entirely possible that Trump's proposed tariffs will increase the price of those vehicles.
That poster has been ptoperly vetted?
Trump does not feel he needs to askFixed it for you.GodHimself for forgiveness- one more reason to view him negatively.
I am simply stating that 53% of the voters in Texas DID NOT WANT TED CRUZ.
If Cruz wants to be reelected to the Senate, he needs to pay attention to THIS number, and not concern himself anymore with Trump's victory.
You cannot accurately make that statement.
Aligning yourself with Marxists to promote one of their Sacraments doesn't exactly inspire Conservative confidence.
I hate crowds and mobs, most often they are emotional blobs of euphoria or anger that I tend to stay clear of or oppose. Perhaps I am uninformed, but I posted an actual visual example of what I was informed about.
I did that for awhile with a lot of folks I voted for over the years that started out Conservative - but ended up raving Lefties and staunch Protectors of the Oligarchy.
There is this magical thing that happens to just about everyone that breathes the air at Mordor on the Potomac for any extended period of time. So I reserve my skepticism at all times.
First off most Trump supporters aren't blind. We see the imperfect candidate. We also see a congress and POTUS that repeatedly let us down, lied and broke promises.
The SOS over and over again. You accuse Trump of being a fake conservative because he isn't conservative enough for you. (NeverTrumps seem to believe they are perfect) He supports securing our borders, the 2nd Amendment, strengthening our military and fair trade.
I'll take that over the broken promises, pledges and lies that we've been handed the last few decades. Trump is going to be the GOP candidate and there are a number of people more conservative and intelligent than you who support Trump's candidacy.
He's not a politician.
I've put my faith and trust in politicians for years and have been constantly disappointed. I'm willing to give a businessman a chance. He's far from being perfect, but imperfect and irreverent is what I believe is needed to get this country back on track.
Of course I can. Everything else is spin.
Properly vetted? Seriously? Are you trying to tell me that Trump supporters have properly vetted Trump? That's a joke. He's been as well vetted as Barrack HUSSEIN Obama! With the violence that Trump has projected at his rallies this mindset from some of his supporters doesn't surprise me in the least.
Funny thing, you can tell a lot about people by the company they keep. #NeverTrump
Well sure they do. But isn't a larger increase in price worse than a smaller one?
And this I fully understand. In addition to this, many people are working on a priority basis. Economic issues and Immigration issues are front and foremost. What good does it do us to make headway on social issues if we have an economic collapse?
How long can we sustain the increasing debt load?
A lot of Trump supporters have deliberately chosen to put out the fire before worrying about the rot. If you can't save the nation from a fire, the rot isn't going to matter anyways.
The rot is already present and it runs deep.
So he says, but will he really do it? The probabilities are not looking so good. He's already backtracking on the Muslim ban and trying to sound conciliatory about the fence. Does he have any absolutely core values that he will defend and support no matter what?
How many promises of past and sitting politicians have been fulfilled? I believe Trump will do at least as well as any present day candidate. He's not trying to enhance or embellish a political career.
I can't tell, and I doubt that anyone else can tell for sure. Trump is a "Joker", meaning a "Wild Card" whom we can't really tell will help us or not.
What politician can be fully trusted?
I can see Trump as a protest vote. After all, how much worse can he be than bastards like McConnell or Boehner? The thing I most like about him is the fact that the Establishment people didn't want him.
When the Establishment tries to derail their own party candidate we know he's right on target.
Trump is an open book.
Yet he won't release his tax returns - the first major candidate to refuse to do so in decades.
So what? I heard other Republicans, some former presidential candidates, say he should NOT. There is no requirement to do so and all it does is cause more controversy.
You lack credibility, A-Lert, because you are incapable of introspection and skepticism when it comes to your Leader. I'm not saying you're a shill, but your perspective is indistinguishable from one.
You, a Kasich worshipper and shill, critical of my credibility? :silly: I'm skeptical of any politician. Just because I chose not to support the SOS, actually proves I'm introspective and skeptical.
"Spin" is saying that a man wasn't wanted because the vote was split three different ways. Back in 1992, Ross Perot split the Libertarian vote off from the George HW Bush vote and allowed Clinton to win on a plurality.
Had Ross Perot not been in the race, that Libertarian vote would have ended up in the George HW Bush column, and we would have avoided the Clinton disaster.
Stop trying to "spin" the primary as proof that Texas didn't want Cruz. Obviously they did, and I expect he will be reelected again. Had Rubio not been in the Primary, I expect Cruz to have run away with it in Texas.
I'm a Texan and will assure you that Ted Cruz will be a U. S. Senator from Texas for as long as he wants to be. The vast majority of Texans absolutely LOVE the man.
Lots of love and appreciation for Ted Cruz, a 5 minute standing ovation at the beginning, a dozens standing Os during his fine speech. No doubt he was and is the choice of practically all RPT delegates. Ted Cruz thanked all and gave a message of hope and optimism. He will continue to fight for the cause, OUR cause.
Thanks for the insight. It was also noted that he received a round of applause when he came back to the Senate. I really admire Cruz and I commend him for all the he's done and all that he continues to do for Conservatism and for Country. I will continue to support him.
Cruz. Reigniting the Promise of America!
And this I fully understand. In addition to this, many people are working on a priority basis. Economic issues and Immigration issues are front and foremost. What good does it do us to make headway on social issues if we have an economic collapse?
How long can we sustain the increasing debt load?
A lot of Trump supporters have deliberately chosen to put out the fire before worrying about the rot. If you can't save the nation from a fire, the rot isn't going to matter anyways.
The rot is already present and it runs deep.
So he says, but will he really do it? The probabilities are not looking so good. He's already backtracking on the Muslim ban and trying to sound conciliatory about the fence. Does he have any absolutely core values that he will defend and support no matter what?
How many promises of past and sitting politicians have been fulfilled? I believe Trump will do at least as well as any present day candidate. He's not trying to enhance or embellish a political career.
I can't tell, and I doubt that anyone else can tell for sure. Trump is a "Joker", meaning a "Wild Card" whom we can't really tell will help us or not.
What politician can be fully trusted?
I can see Trump as a protest vote. After all, how much worse can he be than bastards like McConnell or Boehner? The thing I most like about him is the fact that the Establishment people didn't want him. [/i]
When the Establishment tries to derail their own party candidate we know he's right on target.
Just like Ron Paul. Unable to persuade his colleagues to support him. That is failure of leadership. That is a cold , hard fact.
Thanks for the insight. It was also noted that he received a round of applause when he came back to the Senate. I really admire Cruz and I commend him for all the he's done and all that he continues to do for Conservatism and for Country. I will continue to support him.
Cruz. Reigniting the Promise of America!
If Cruz were Donald the Trumpsters would be claiming standing alone in congress made him a bona fide maverick and the only candidate worthy of their vote.
No Trump isn't a politician. He's a Manhattan real estate tycoon and the son of another real estate tycoon.
Who regularly pays off politicians.
Considering that we're talking about the position of president of the USA and leader of the free world I don't consider this much of an endorsement either.
A real estate tycoon with property holdings in a number of states where he employs over 22,000 people. People who support families, pay taxes and contribute to the health of the US economy.
I think Hillary wins the general, the economy goes into recession, she mismanages one crisis after another and Pubs wake up and join conservatives
While he was building his empire Ted Cruz was in the Supreme Court arguing on behalf of the Constitution that governs the economic system that enables Trump to make his billions.
There is no comparison.
While he was building his empire Ted Cruz was in the Supreme Court arguing on behalf of the Constitution that governs the economic system that enables Trump to make his billions.
There is no comparison.
They were on different tracks, for sure. But the issues that are driving this election for the great "unwashed" American citizens simply have nothing to do with the esoterics of Constitutional law. This election is about day-to-day success--economically, militarily and geopolitically. And Donald Trump has proven he understands the issues and has both the resolve and acumen to address them and put America first.
Trump understands the talking points, but he doesn't understand the issues at all. The fact that he thinks leveling tariffs against our largest trading partners indicates how economically ignorant he truly is.
But he as no intention of imposing punitive tariffs anyway. This is nothing but boob bait for you bubbas. Everything's just a "suggestion" now. Some "resolve."
The GOPe got what they got. Now in the latest Quinnipiac poll, the Orangatang can't even beat Bernie Saunders in PA, OH and FL. If he can't beat Bernie, how will he ever beat Hillary.
Besides cheap crap from China, what is it that we the US gain? How many people are employed here in goods and services supplied to our largest "trading partners like China"?
More than half the amount you spend on products made in China actually stays here — going to American companies, workers, marketers, retailers, and transport providers. The amount is least 55 cents per each $1 spent, says a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. So for that $70 pair of sneakers, $38.50 of it boosts bottom lines here in the U.S.
May 1988: GHWB: 38% Dukakis: 54%
If GHWB could pull it off .... We're looking at a Trump landslide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_1980
http://fortune.com/2011/08/12/made-in-china-makes-money-for-the-u-s-a/
Dukakis torpedoed his campaign. Trump is in the process of torpdoeing his.Agree! The media was in the tank for Trump so their favorite DemRat party would have an easier target to beat. Now with 3 liberals running, a real conservative could step up a take it.
And the press will help him.
They were on different tracks, for sure. But the issues that are driving this election for the great "unwashed" American citizens simply have nothing to do with the esoterics of Constitutional law. This election is about day-to-day success--economically, militarily and geopolitically. And Donald Trump has proven he understands the issues and has both the resolve and acumen to address them and put America first.
Just because it lines the pockets of a limited number of US owned companies, it doesn't mean it improves the job market in the US. Explain the huge trade deficit and national debt.
You're correct. Cruz didn't employ a single person. Lawyers, politicians and regulations are a big part of the problems facing the country.
Trump understands the talking points, but he doesn't understand the issues at all. The fact that he thinks leveling tariffs against our largest trading partners indicates how economically ignorant he truly is.
But he as no intention of imposing punitive tariffs anyway. This is nothing but boob bait for you bubbas. Everything's just a "suggestion" now. Some "resolve."
Another big problem is voters falling for the vague campaign slogans, you-fill-in-the-blank policies and gross, unsubstantiated generalizations of egomaniacal fraudsters.
You'd think we'da learned after the past eight years.
Wasn't this the conservative plan for victory after eight years of Obama? I hope, in all seriousness, that you look long and hard at how foolish a strategy this is.
I also hope you embrace with both hands this opportunity to stop another Clinton presidency and the guarantee of Democrat presidents for the next generation.
Eight years? Remember "Read my lips, no new taxes"?
Besides cheap crap from China, what is it that we the US gain? How many people are employed here in goods and services supplied to our largest "trading partners like China"?
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
That went out the window last week.
I've explained trade deficits to you before, but you seem impermeable. I'll try one more time.
A trade deficit exists when one country buys more from another country than the second country buys. In this case, the US buys more from China than they buy from us. Why? We are rich and they are poor. We can buy more from then than they can buy from us. So we will always have a trade deficit with China and Mexico and most other countries in the world. They give us stuff we want, we give them paper.
This keeps the cost of living low for our middle class and lower middle class. We cannot make shirts and TV sets and computers as cheaply as China can. Or Vietnam or any Asian country. And the stuff they do buy are our planes and construction equipment.
The jobs in Asia are not coming back to the United States! You have to get that through your thick skull. We have to continue to develop our high tech manufacturing (the robots that will replace the $15/hr retail workers) and our knowledge industries.
Donald Trump is NOT the POTUS yet, is he? Do you disagree with cessation of Muslims entering the country until our representatives can figure out what is going on? Does the US government have the power to curtail or restrict entry to the USA?
Mostly agree. However, there are situations where some countries, and particularly China, have protectionist policies that prohibit "Buy American". We have to admit that, and we have to agree with Trump supporters, that must be stopped.
However, that is not the norm, nor is protectionism from other countries America's largest problem. Shutting down foreign trade, as Trump has pledged to do, will harm the first world country which can AFFORD the trade more than the third (maybe 2.5) world country that can't afford American goods anyhow.
There's simply no finesse with Trump. There's whichever lie you care to believe, with Trump. My guess is that whatever Trump does, his family will make $LOADS. Just like his "self-funding" B.S., he'll get all that money from the primary back and more. Trump will have his own "pay to play" ongoing. If you look honestly as his history, punishing enemies and making money off the weak, the "losers" of the world, is Trump's M.O.. He'll do the same in the White House, except, he won't make it there other than as Hillary's guest.
I believe Canada & Mexico are our largest trading partners. As far as China goes it's a huge market for our agricultural products and would be for natural gas and oil if we opened up our production of our natural resources.
China is an unfair trading partner and if we opened our trade with other Asian countries in the region we would be in a better position to close down some trading with them if they didn't change their trading practices.
No I don't. How could you tell they're Muslims? They're going to tell you? What a dope.
You lose once again.
You can't answer the question. I sure wish you could rejoin the land of the living. If you'd get over that dumbshititis disease you've got, you could.That's about typical of alert, always answers with a question.
That's about typical of alert, always answers with a question.
No one else is either. I don;t know what the Trump Reports numbers are over last year but FOX is now in 2nd place to CNN of all place for 2 months straight since they went in the tank for Donny.
I wouldn't spend too much grief on A-Lert. He worships Donald Trump and simply can't stand even a breath of anything that smacks of less than full worshipfulness of Trump. It's a little disturbing to see one human being worshiping another, but I guess it takes all kinds.Now that is the best response I've seen yet. He probably had a picture of the Orange One plastered all over his home.
Agree! The media was in the tank for Trump so their favorite DemRat party would have an easier target to beat. Now with 3 liberals running, a real conservative could step up a take it.
I wouldn't spend too much grief on A-Lert. He worships Donald Trump and simply can't stand even a breath of anything that smacks of less than full worshipfulness of Trump. It's a little disturbing to see one human being worshiping another, but I guess it takes all kinds.
Now that is the best response I've seen yet. He probably had a picture of the Orange One plastered all over his home.
It was the hope this time around, but a guy pretending to be a conservative was able to win enough votes that the real conservative lost. Now we're stuck with 2 NY liberals. I will vote for conservatives on the ballot and I will send contributions to them. I won't vote for either of the NY liberals and I will advise any friends who will listen to do the same.
You can take the Freeper out of Free Republic but you can't take the stupidity of Free Republic out of a Freeper! Clique, clique, clique..... 88finger point :laughingdog:Ha ha... Must be nice to be so full of yourself.
The jobs in Asia are not coming back to the United States!
Now that is the best response I've seen yet. He probably had a picture of the Orange One plastered all over his home.
He certainly is keen on those emoticons, isn't he? His primary response to a point made by anybody he disagrees with is to roll on the floor laughing. Cute, but hardly a valid form of argumentation, unless you're a liberal.
Ridiculous allegations, accusations and incessant whining warrant little more than an emoticon.Now THAT should raise the BS flag! :bsflag:
Ridiculous allegations, accusations and incessant whining warrant little more than an emoticon.
Donald Trump HAS the 1237 delegate votes for the 1st Convention vote...in hand or virtually guaranteed.Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
That's because
1) We've gone through all the VALID reasons...ad nauseum... why we've chosen Donald Trump, going on 9 months now.
2) Donald Trump HAS the 1237 delegate votes for the 1st Convention vote...in hand or virtually guaranteed.
“I’m pleased to welcome Donald Trump into the race for the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States. His experience as a successful businessman and job creator will prove crucial to ensuring the eventual GOP nominee is not only well-equipped to defeat Hillary Clinton in November, but also to make America great again.”
“When it comes to Donald Trump, I like Donald Trump. I think he’s terrific. I think he’s brash. I think he speaks the truth,” Cruz said during an interview on “Fox and Friends” promoting his new book. “And I think NBC is engaging in political correctness that is silly and that is wrong.”
"He’s bold and brash, and he’s willing to speak the truth. And he’s taking on the Washington cartel," Cruz said.
[...]
"I appreciate Donald focusing on illegal immigration," Cruz said. "I've been proud to defend him for focusing on illegal immigration."
“Quite a few members of this field have attacked Donald Trump. A lot of folks in the media have asked me ‘Ted Cruz, will you do the same?’ I have been glad to praise Donald Trump for speaking out boldly and brashly and for focusing on illegal immigration.”
Ted Cruz ✔ @tedcruz
The Establishment's only hope: Trump & me in a cage match.
Sorry to disappoint -- @realDonaldTrump is terrific. #DealWithIt
12:03 PM - 11 Dec 2015
6,755 6,755 Retweets 9,024 9,024 likes
So why is it that you Trump bots are SO VERY worried about those of us who won't support him?
Ridiculous allegations, accusations and incessant whining warrant little more than an emoticon.
Have you ever watched a debate where a token conservative contends against three or four liberals? The response to everything the conservative says is laughter, and knowing looks between the liberals that say, "isn't he precious!" But they never really have anything to say. That's because the ideas of the conservatives are so preposterous that they hardly merit a response.
Not worried, ya ole fart! Just disappointed, that's all. :laugh:
So why is it that you Trump bots are SO VERY worried about those of us who won't support him?Same reason we try to help the disabled in the family. Its the Christian/right thing to do.
I think you'd be better off trying to defend what Trump actually means rather than his "truthful hyperbole".Or even better example, someone coming from England, France, Belgium or any other European country to visit Disney World, that might be Muslim with sinister motives. THEY don't need a Visa.
Suppose someone is coming here from India on a student visa. How do we know whether they are Hindu or Muslim so that we know whether or not they are banned?
Donald Trump CANNOT win this election without all of us #NeverTrump. It's a fact. There is speculation right now that Hillary will pick Warren as her VP who is one of the most liberal left progressives who appeals to women, the far left, the Sanders crowd and the LGBT crowd. He's going to lose by a landslide.
So you are working for Hillary. Good to know.
It's fascinating, R-i-V....isn't it? :laugh:
So you are working for Hillary. Good to know.
Working against Trump. That this cretin is who you Trumpkins saddled us with is YOUR fault. 10 million votes for Donald in the primaries, 15 million against.
You want a reality TV clown for president, you vote for him.
That's because
1) We've gone through all the VALID reasons...ad nauseum... why we've chosen Donald Trump, going on 9 months now.
2) Donald Trump HAS the 1237 delegate votes for the 1st Convention vote...in hand or virtually guaranteed.
Well they are valid for you. And that's fine. But Don isn't a conservative. So he's not a valid choice for conservatives.
Trump can have 'all the things'. Doesn't matter a whit. He doesn't have my vote. Or my integrity. I'll spend them on a conservative.
But Hillary is suddenly "Conservative"?
This is Trump vs. Hillary.
You can tie yourselves in knots trying to convince yourselves that Trump would be worse than Hillary Clinton.
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
I would say Trump has proven that he understand the anger regarding those issues. That's a far cry from proving that he understands the issues themselves, and I think that's the gamble.
Please, continue to split hairs ... but move out the fast lane, we've an election to win.
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/W/6/reagan_bonzo.jpg)
Worked for this guy....... :whistle:
You can't equate Donald Trump to Ronald Reagan. Reagan was principled and showed his convictions and love of America, not love of himself from early on in his life. Reagan was self-deprecating in his humor and made EVERYONE feel like they mattered and they were a part of his vision for a greater America. Reagan had political experience before he ran for President. He always stated his positions clearly and even when he changed his mind he explained that change clearly.
Including Cruz himself?@AbaraXas @Weird Tolkienish Figure
Look, I like Cruz but he bears blame too. Nearly the whole conservative establishment bears some blame, from Limbaugh to Erich Erickson (who was pro-Trump way back when) to Ted Cruz. Even I supported the guy at one point.
Quote
“I’m pleased to welcome Donald Trump into the race for the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States. His experience as a successful businessman and job creator will prove crucial to ensuring the eventual GOP nominee is not only well-equipped to defeat Hillary Clinton in November, but also to make America great again.”Quote
“When it comes to Donald Trump, I like Donald Trump. I think he’s terrific. I think he’s brash. I think he speaks the truth,” Cruz said during an interview on “Fox and Friends” promoting his new book. “And I think NBC is engaging in political correctness that is silly and that is wrong.”Quote
"He’s bold and brash, and he’s willing to speak the truth. And he’s taking on the Washington cartel," Cruz said.
[...]
"I appreciate Donald focusing on illegal immigration," Cruz said. "I've been proud to defend him for focusing on illegal immigration."Quote
“Quite a few members of this field have attacked Donald Trump. A lot of folks in the media have asked me ‘Ted Cruz, will you do the same?’ I have been glad to praise Donald Trump for speaking out boldly and brashly and for focusing on illegal immigration.”Quote
Ted Cruz ✔ @tedcruz
The Establishment's only hope: Trump & me in a cage match.
Sorry to disappoint -- @realDonaldTrump is terrific. #DealWithIt
12:03 PM - 11 Dec 2015
6,755 6,755 Retweets 9,024 9,024 likes
...comparing Trump to Hit-ler and Mussolini?Now there is a thought.
Now there is a thought.
Trump, Hit*ler, Mussolini, Putin, Stalin, Mengele, Napoleon all have one thing in common; they are narcissists.Great points of similarity.
The appeal of narcissistic leaders is also their downfall
Being able to choose between leaders who we “like” in the short term and those who we believe will get the job done and be effective over time is not necessarily an easy task. Dealing with this paradox is vital to be able to ensure effective leadership in the long term.
http://theconversation.com/the-appeal-of-narcissistic-leaders-is-also-their-downfall-49398
Reagan voted for FDR four times. Is comparing Trump to Reagan any worse than the neverTrumps comparing Trump to Hit-ler and Mussolini?
No he wasn't treated fairly. I no longer visit FoxNew.com or Drudge.
Reagan voted for FDR four times. Is comparing Trump to Reagan any worse than the neverTrumps comparing Trump to Hit-ler and Mussolini?
Trump doesn't care who wins, as long as he can buy his way in. And if Hillary would win, it would be easier for him to keep on ripping off others and buy influence with the Clintons.
This is an informative article about Reagan and FDR -
http://firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1082&theme=home&page=1&loc=b&type=ctbf
Don't worry, the Strumpets will "prove" how #NeverTrump is solely responsible for Clinton's eventual victory because he refused to trample our principles and toe the Trump personality cult line.
Just words on a page. What politicians think of me doesn't and hasn't ever mattered. I admit that I was thinking that this would be the year that Republicans would get behind someone that would be a night and day difference from Obama and we could finally be done with eight years of liberalism. Executive Actions. With this nomination of Trump more than ever have I seen that the Republican party has no desire to return us to Conservative principles. So why would I care? I don't want Hillary and I certainly don't want Trump. I don't see this election as any possible win at all. I could just not vote and you get what you get. Its liberal or liberal. I am one thought away from the conclusion that it is all a rigged process and Apple Pie isn't American anymore. Happy shopping.
You get what you get so don't throw a fit. Some people still believe in morals and no politician is going to make me choke down any Donald Trump. I can sit at the table forever and I won't swallow it.
I know some anti-Trumpers are going to say "I have to vote Trump to prevent Hillary ....." or "I cannot as a principled conservative vote for either, I'm both #NeverHillary and #NeverTrump".
Well, I'm one more thing.
#NeverDisenfranchised.
Because however you slice it, both Hillary and Trump are all about disfranchising the majority of Americans. Trump with his use of scorched earth morality when attacking GOP conservatives, and ONLY conservatives, while using open winner-take-all primaries with cross over progressives and 35% of the GOP to run a "hostile takeover", and Hillary?? Nuff said - she has a 25 year history of fascist tactics (anyone remember the 500 FBI files she took of Bush I GOP insiders, or Whitewater, or the Bimbo eruption squad?). The very fact that so many are throwing their hands into the air and saying "I'm done" is music to their ears. That's just fewer voters they have to try to control.
I won't have my vote trashed because of a left wing or right wing authoritarian. I'll vote to hurt one or the other. I could end up voting Libertarian if there's any chance HE can hurt either Trump or Clinton.
However, I'll do everything I can to make my vote count. Absent the last honest conservative from the GOP field, there isn't a moral choice left, but I damned well WILL CHOSE.
(but I gotta come up with a catchier twitter tag lie. :shrug: )
Eight years? Remember "Read my lips, no new taxes"?
No I don't. How could you tell they're Muslims? They're going to tell you?
If all those ForeverTrump fanatics don't want Hillary to win, they should go after the DOJ and Obama for holding up her indictment instead of incessantly attacking once fellow Pubs. By attacking Pubbies you are alienating them more, than attacking the appropriate target. Or do you fear Bernie more?
We had 15 other candidates...each of us had our preferences in this forum; predominately Cruz, Rubio and Kasich...and we wound up with an orange buffoon. It sickens me. I'm not sure who I fear more; Bernie, Clinton or Trump?
Then, dear, get some professional help.And Who might that knight in shining armor be? Never saw orange armor before. :patriot:
And hurry please, we've got less than six months to save our country for our grandchildren and children.
Then, dear, get some professional help.
And hurry please, we've got less than six months to save our country for our grandchildren and children.
Yes. Hand them a pork sandwich and tell them to take a bite. Easy Peasy.
And Who might that knight in shining armor be? Never saw orange armor before. :patriot:
Orthodox Jews wouldn't take a bite. You gonna keep them out too?Let's get them lettuce eatin' vegetarians out too.
Then, dear, get some professional help.
And hurry please, we've got less than six months to save our country for our grandchildren and children.
Ughh. Why is deification of another human being always so unbecoming?
It's a natural feeling to be upset when you picked the wrong horse.
Must be embarrassing, too, huh? :laugh:
Ughh. Why is deification of another human being always so unbecoming?You'll be smoking a turd in Hell for denying Trump's divinity...after your show trial and execution.
And hurry please, we've got less than six months to save our country for our grandchildren and children.
It's taken the country 50+ years to fall this far, and you think it can be saved by simply electing the right person to the presidency? **nononono*
It's taken the country 50+ years to fall this far, and you think it can be saved by simply electing the right person to the presidency? **nononono*
It's taken the country 50+ years to fall this far, and you think it can be saved by simply electing the right person to the presidency? **nononono*
At least he picked the front end of the horse.
Irrelevant. They want and demand a dictator and king to act as they want him to by decree so as to "save" us and then punish and remove all their enemies by the wave of his hand.
We'll see how you like it when they repeal the 2nd Amendment and start confiscating privately held firearms.
(http://in5d.com/images/5d-tinfoil-hat-.jpg)
Irrelevant. They want and demand a dictator and king to act as they want him to by decree so as to "save" us and then punish and remove all their enemies by the wave of his hand.
At least he picked the front end of the horse.
We'll see how you like it when they repeal the 2nd Amendment and start confiscating privately held firearms. :whistle:
Nice self-portrait of yourself.
When they get mine they will all be unloaded I'll assure you!
Nice self-portrait of yourself. We figured as much.
That said, shall I post the comments and threads of Trump Believers who are publicly calling for Trump to act as dictator?
Not from anybody in here, you won't.
'We're all very rational, thinking Conservatives.
With every post you strengthen my point. Thanks.
We'll see how you like it when they repeal the 2nd Amendment and start confiscating privately held firearms. :whistle:
The longest journey begins with the first step. We've got to start somewhere, don't we?
Mr. Trump is not the person who will start it. Choose better next time.
Must be nice to still believe in fairy tales at your age!
I expect that to happen eventually regardless of who wins this election. :shrug:
No chance under a Trump administration.
It goes against every fiber of his image and campaign....who he is...who he's become.
Why should I believe you? You evidently supported a loser. You should choose better next time.
Why should I believe you? You evidently supported a loser. You should choose better next time.Didn't you vote for Romney last trip? He lost. Guess my track record is more accurate. Chose better next time.
Didn't you vote for Romney last trip? He lost. Guess my track record is more accurate. Chose better next time.
Yes. Hand them a pork sandwich and tell them to take a bite. Easy Peasy.
Beggin your pardon, but there's many a Jew and many a Messianic (including me) that would refuse such a thing too
Serious questions; Would a Jew swear on the Bible?
Would a Jew touch a Koran?
@Jewbacca @Tzfat
I am not a Jew so I cannot speak for them (though I have pinged two here to answer as they will)... But I would not so swear.
Again, I am not a Jew, but I have read the Koran and all the Hadiths.
Serious questions; Would a Jew swear on the Bible? Would a Jew touch a Koran?
Yes I voted to keep Obama from getting a second term. I didn't choose Romney. He was all that was standing between Obungler and a second term. Too bad Romney didn't campaign like he wanted to win. The GOP missed a golden opportunity.
You lost. You chose poorly. So ragging on anyone else for 'choosing poorly' when you clearly couldn't pick a winner doesn't carry a lot of weight.
No chance under a Trump administration.
It goes against every fiber of his image and campaign....who he is...who he's become.
When Cruz came back to the Senate, he was warmly received and applauded; certainly a change of tune.
Let's see. He has an image of a bombastic liberal narcissist; that's who he is and always has been. He is a liberal in conservative garb who back pedals on the issues making him an orange buffoon; that's who he's become. The only image he cares about is his image of wealth and the size of his hands.
Screw them all and the jackasses that rode in on them. They were all cowards,liars and unprincipled turncoats while Ted was trying to do the right thing. They earned my eternal scorn when they turned their backs on Cruz's filibuster. The only republicans in congress I have any respect for are those who stood with Ted to stop the liberal agenda....who were they, again? Oh right, exactly nobody!!! May they ALL rot in political hell!Exactly!. That is why I think Cruz, Sasse, Lee and a handful of others should reject their GOP alliance in the Senate and band together as independents or as members of the Constitution Party. McConnell could then no longer claim to be "Majority Leader" since there would no longer be a GOP majority nor a Dem majority. What would he do? Claim to be the plurality leader? Ha! This small, but unified, could wield tremendous power as they would HAVE to be reckoned with to get anything done correctly.
Exactly!. That is why I think Cruz, Sasse, Lee and a handful of others should reject their GOP alliance in the Senate and band together as independents or as members of the Constitution Party. McConnell could then no longer claim to be "Majority Leader" since there would no longer be a GOP majority nor a Dem majority. What would he do? Claim to be the plurality leader? Ha! This small, but unified, could wield tremendous power as they would HAVE to be reckoned with to get anything done correctly.
I understand your thinking on this, but I'm not so sure switching parties come re-election time would be to their benefit or to ours.Someone has got to start the ball rolling. The once proud GOP has left the station going the wrong way. Either they try and catch THAT train, or they hop another going in the right direction.
When they get mine they will all be unloaded I'll assure you!So you'll be turning in your ammunition shortly before turning in your weapons? :whistle:
So you'll be turning in your ammunition shortly before turning in your weapons? :whistle:
Screw them all and the jackasses that rode in on them. They were all cowards,liars and unprincipled turncoats while Ted was trying to do the right thing. They earned my eternal scorn when they turned their backs on Cruz's filibuster. The only republicans in congress I have any respect for are those who stood with Ted to stop the liberal agenda....who were they, again? Oh right, exactly nobody!!! May they ALL rot in political hell!
Cruz was treated like a red-headed stepchild by the GOP establishment, the DEMS, Fox News (in particular Sean Hannity) and the MSM. Ironically, the liberal media treated him at times better than conservative news. I find it quite disheartening and appalling when a member of our party stands up and defends our rights, and freedoms, including religious liberty, of "We the People" under the Constitution and is greatly chastised, ridiculed and attacked for doing so. Cruz is absolutely 100% correct, everyone who is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump will bear that responsibility going forward. I find it interesting that many members of Congress are now very reluctant to be associated with Trump and some are declining to be his VP. That speaks volumes. My question is, where were they when they very well could have easily voiced support for Cruz? When Cruz came back to the Senate, he was warmly received and applauded; certainly a change of tune.
Fifteen other candidates competed against Trump. None of those candidates were as vile and vulgar towards each other as Trump was to them. Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others. If we simply take a step back and look at the huge difference in character alone between Cruz and Trump it is equally disheartening that the masses would chose a bully over a gentlemen to lead our country and to set an example for our children. They chose someone who obviously lacks moral character over someone of great integrity. What does this say about the mindset of his supporters? To think that this is what newly acquired voters are drawn to is frightening. It indicates that we have become a society of bullies, liars, and cheaters who verbally abuse one another and that is now acceptable. All I can say now, is God, please help us!
#Never Trump Don't blame me. I support Cruz.
Cruz was treated like a red-headed stepchild by the GOP establishment, the DEMS, Fox News (in particular Sean Hannity) and the MSM. Ironically, the liberal media treated him at times better than conservative news. I find it quite disheartening and appalling when a member of our party stands up and defends our rights, and freedoms, including religious liberty, of "We the People" under the Constitution and is greatly chastised, ridiculed and attacked for doing so. Cruz is absolutely 100% correct, everyone who is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump will bear that responsibility going forward. I find it interesting that many members of Congress are now very reluctant to be associated with Trump and some are declining to be his VP. That speaks volumes. My question is, where were they when they very well could have easily voiced support for Cruz? When Cruz came back to the Senate, he was warmly received and applauded; certainly a change of tune.
Fifteen other candidates competed against Trump. None of those candidates were as vile and vulgar towards each other as Trump was to them. Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others. If we simply take a step back and look at the huge difference in character alone between Cruz and Trump it is equally disheartening that the masses would chose a bully over a gentlemen to lead our country and to set an example for our children. They chose someone who obviously lacks moral character over someone of great integrity. What does this say about the mindset of his supporters? To think that this is what newly acquired voters are drawn to is frightening. It indicates that we have become a society of bullies, liars, and cheaters who verbally abuse one another and that is now acceptable. All I can say now, is God, please help us!
#Never Trump Don't blame me. I support Cruz.Wow. Good post.
I have not completely given up hope for America as a free, sovereign nation, but as I read the Bible--as I consider our God and Creator's Being and character (not to mention the details of the Book of Revelations)--I strongly suspect that the Lord has ordained the destruction of an apostate America in order to trigger a major end-time revival. In this way, the true people of God win no matter what.
In my opinion, the folks who are facing perhaps the direst consequences of the mess that we are in are the evangelicals who will always claim that Trump is a God-fearing man. Trump, of course, is a Creator-despising fool by every standard of both Testaments--not a man who fears God. So, even if Trump squeaks out a victory over Hillary, I suspect that America as we know her and love her is doomed.
The vast majority of the #NeverTrump folks whom I know personally fear God a lot more than they fear Hillary. We will not be a party to a Trump Presidency, no matter what. Thus, the Trumpsters will never budge us with the looming threat of Hillary's election. (Trump's ethically challenged [!] supporters will never grasp that. But again, the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.)
We'll see how you like it when they repeal the 2nd Amendment and start confiscating privately held firearms. :whistle:@DCPatriot @Bear_in_RoseBearI expect that to happen eventually regardless of who wins this election. :shrug:No chance under a Trump administration.
It goes against every fiber of his image and campaign....who he is...who he's become.
@DCPatriot @Bear_in_RoseBear
That last statement ignores a hell of a lot of Trump's history. Good luck with that.
I understand your thinking on this, but I'm not so sure switching parties come re-election time would be to their benefit or to ours.
So you'll be turning in your ammunition shortly before turning in your weapons? :whistle:I think the adage is 'they can have my guns, bullets first until my mags are empty', or something similar.
Wow. Good post.
I have not completely given up hope for America as a free, sovereign nation, but as I read the Bible--as I consider our God and Creator's Being and character (not to mention the details of the Book of Revelations)--I strongly suspect that the Lord has ordained the destruction of an apostate America in order to trigger a major end-time revival. In this way, the true people of God win no matter what.
In my opinion, the folks who are facing perhaps the direst consequences of the mess that we are in are the evangelicals who will always claim that Trump is a God-fearing man. Trump, of course, is a Creator-despising fool by every standard of both Testaments--not a man who fears God. So, even if Trump squeaks out a victory over Hillary, I suspect that America as we know her and love her is doomed.
The vast majority of the #NeverTrump folks whom I know personally fear God a lot more than they fear Hillary. We will not be a party to a Trump Presidency, no matter what. Thus, the Trumpsters will never budge us with the looming threat of Hillary's election. (Trump's ethically challenged [!] supporters will never grasp that. But again, the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.)
IF Trump, and that is a big IF, would come out and state his top 3 areas of his Presidency are
--provide for a common defense and eliminate any government agency that does not serve that function,
--abolish the 16th Amendment (the ability of the Federal government to tax individuals) and
--promote a constitutional republic by the appointment of constitutionalist judges (not just conservative), then he might get my support. But he won't do that. And if he did, not sure I would believe him.
That's the ENTIRE problem! How can anyone believe a word he says when everything he says runs counter to his entire history of word and deed?
Completely understand. However, there are a WHOLE lotta people out there looking for a new home for their CONSERVATIVE vote. Plus, likely, a few independents and Reagan Democrats would jump on board.
Even if they lost, picking up 10%, 15%, or even 25% of the vote starting from ground zero 5 months from the G.E. would put a stake through the heart of the GOP - forever, and scare the heck out of the Dems and GOPTrumps.
A new "conservative" party will not arrive in a single election, but regardless of which progressive wins in November, what Cruz, Sasse, and other conservatives do between now and November will make all the difference in the world going forward. For one thing, they'll dispel the myth that a viable third party is not possible in a system of government locked between two parties for 150 years. To be viable in 2018 and future elections, they'd need to make a dent in 2016.
...As it stands, conservatives are beaten, finished, and possibly forever. A whole lot of people will simply drop out of the system, and allow the rogues to run America going forward, waiting in many cases, for the next civil war to purge America. Better to fight politically tomorrow, under a new banner, losing the battle today, than to fight literally tomorrow. That may be the choice.
I'd LOVE to see a new third, conservative party before Novermber, even if every vote had to be a write-in vote.
I think we'we've always felt pretty secure (in lifetime) about our religious liberties. But more and more we see them eroded in the interests of the inconsequential. I have also been thinking that we are moving into the end times scenario (just finished a study on Revelation).
Why does everyone continue to put their hope in elections to save what has already been usurped, replaced, abolished and fundamentally transformed????
We had a velvet coup folks. The Rule of Law and the Constitution have been made IRRELEVANT and Congress and the Courts have surrendered their duty and have of themselves been corrupted into the oligarchy running the show.
You cannot stop tyranny and this kind of institutionalized corruption via civil means. Elections are now as manipulated as the stock market.
THINK PAST where everyone puts their faith and hope. UNDERSTAND where we have been taken and what will be required of you to survive what history teaches is now inevitable.
So what is the solution in your opinion?
Solution??? What Republic in the history of the planet has ever come back once it discarded it's foundations and was lost to the tyranny of men and the mob?
Put your faith in The Lord, not in men or their promises or their institutions.
Repent of your personal sins and shortcomings.
Prep to survive and endure what is to come.
You can reference the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, 1923-29 Italy, 1938 Germany and Venezuela today to get an idea of what happens to the people the rulers have targeted and/or end up suffering the most.
I hear what you are saying and I believe the foundation upon which this country was founded upon has been crumbling for quite some time. It has been obvious that Washington is broken and cannot be fixed for awhile. The GOP has been completely hijacked and those Congressmen refusing to align themselves with Trump are either horrified by him or saving their own necks for future re-election. The realization that Trump will be no better, if not worse than Clinton is starting to sink in.The easiest and quickest place to start a new trend (back to the constitutional conservatism foundation of this country) is for at least 4 senators to renounce the Republican Party and declare they are independent or a member of the Constitution Party. Neither McConnell nor Schumer could claim Majority, thus power would rest with this small group through a coalition.
Our last hope is to work (time is of the essence) to maintain our conservative governors in the States and stand behind them.
Perhaps a government collapse is needed in order to restore it. The Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written and we have been complacent in allowing the federal government to control the states; more provisions and protections should have been given to the individual states to avoid government overreach; and perhaps term limits should have been imposed on the Supreme Court justices. Cruz tried to stop the annihilation of our country and almost succeeded. I don't think he's going away anytime soon nor are his supporters.
The easiest and quickest place to start a new trend (back to the constitutional conservatism foundation of this country) is for at least 4 senators to renounce the Republican Party and declare they are independent or a member of the Constitution Party. Neither McConnell nor Schumer could claim Majority, thus power would rest with this small group through a coalition.
Solution??? What Republic in the history of the planet has ever come back once it discarded it's foundations and was lost to the tyranny of men and the mob?
Put your faith in The Lord, not in men or their promises or their institutions.
What will God do exactly? I thought the founders were Deists who basically believed God stayed out of men's affairs?
I know a lot of Christians think that God no longer does such things, but if they understood that God says He is the same yesterday, today and forever, and understood prophetic events foretold in the scriptures - they would believe that His Word is infallible, and what He warned a nation of His people called by His Name in Deuteronomy 28 in terms of blessings and cursings, had no expiration date.
Do we need a Religion Forum?
I hear what you are saying and I believe the foundation upon which this country was founded upon has been crumbling for quite some time. It has been obvious that Washington is broken and cannot be fixed for awhile. The GOP has been completely hijacked and those Congressmen refusing to align themselves with Trump are either horrified by him or saving their own necks for future re-election. The realization that Trump will be no better, if not worse than Clinton is starting to sink in.
Our last hope is to work (time is of the essence) to maintain our conservative governors in the States and stand behind them.
Perhaps a government collapse is needed in order to restore it. The Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written and we have been complacent in allowing the federal government to control the states; more provisions and protections should have been given to the individual states to avoid government overreach; and perhaps term limits should have been imposed on the Supreme Court justices. Cruz tried to stop the annihilation of our country and almost succeeded. I don't think he's going away anytime soon nor are his supporters.
Do we need a Religion Forum?
Sorry but I'll need more advice than to "pray".
I'm not discussing doctrine or catechism. I am discussing faith and the Christian religion in the exact same manner the Founding Fathers themselves discussed it when debating and arguing about establishing the nation.
Or does the mere mention of The Creator and Christianity so offend you that you seek any mention of it to be banished and prohibited?
No you're not. Your context is an evangelical literal interpretation of every word of Scripture, and lots of Christians do not subscribe to such an approach.Thank you Sink!
That is one of the reasons we don't have a religion forum and I hope we never do. It will be nothing but a constant source of verbal warfare.
No you're not. Your context is an evangelical literal interpretation of every word of Scripture, and lots of Christians do not subscribe to such an approach.
Prep.
The easiest and quickest place to start a new trend (back to the constitutional conservatism foundation of this country) is for at least 4 senators to renounce the Republican Party and declare they are independent or a member of the Constitution Party. Neither McConnell nor Schumer could claim Majority, thus power would rest with this small group through a coalition.
That is a reasonable response, but I feel we still can avert a situation like Venezuela here in the US. This is why I remain passionate about politics.
Our last hope is to work (time is of the essence) to maintain our conservative governors in the States and stand behind them.
What will God do exactly? I thought the founders were Deists who basically believed God stayed out of men's affairs?
Thank you Sink!I op on IRC many many channels as part of a server team. Religion and Politics channels are where one goes to argue. Usually very active large number of nicks. Any channel with politics or Christian in the channel name gets tons of trolls and arguments. Fun times. As the joke goes. "You can't fight in here! This is a war room."
Very well said :patriot:
That would just split the GOP vote in those states.Who's talking about states. I was talking about the US Senate. A quick neutralization of the two parties is easier to achieve than not.
@INVAR
While I am largely in agreement with INVAR, yours libertybele, is near the eternal hope of rejuvenation in this American Republic.
It starts in the precincts, grows in the state houses, blossoms in the Governorship.
One of the things that this election season has discounted is the TEA Party. And it is worth the fight. All is not lost. The power of the fed is at the whim of the states. We HAVE TO keep fighting the good fight to overturn.
And if not, there is yet one more step - revolution - if no other step remains.
And while I am commiserate with you INVAR, I will not give it up until there is not a single vestige of our liberties existing, and I and my compatriots have no breath left within us. Until that day, hope remains.
Our hope should not be in the institutions of men, because a people who are not governed by God will be ruled by the tyranny of men - that is a fact of history and constant warning from our Founders and Framers.
[...] refusal to comply with tyrants and active resistance to abiding their decrees and refusing our support for their existence is what our course should be. This federal government no longer has lawful legal authority over a righteous people.
They lost that authority when they made their newfound morality higher than that of The Almighty's Authority and when they sought to force it upon The Lord's people. Refusal to submit to a lawless and Constitutionally unmoored Kleptocracy is every Patriot's duty. Without God and scripture as our Sovereign, we have no claim to the Higher Authority which is where Our Rights come from and where justification for refusing the king originates.
We can claim the Constitution all the day long - and it will have null effect on the institutions of men that have determined they can ignore it, redefine it and make decrees that usurp it making the document irrelevant. Which in all practicality it is now. In addition, the risk of ruin and penalty is not something most would even allow themselves to contemplate.
Case-in-point: I've watched entire church cultures buckle and bow to the homosexual agenda out of fear and loss of offerings and tax exempt status. Money is what most value today - and risking wealth and property is not what this people today are willing to do in terms of defying tyranny.
Most people still refuse to call Mordor on the Potomac what it is, or even acknowledge that we live under a meddlesome tyranny. They are comfortable where we are now, or think they have found ways to prosper or cheat the 'system' to their benefit. Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God according to Benjamin Franklin.
The problem is, the few who do resist are made quick and very public examples of - or the Beast waits patiently to ensure anyone caught defying them is rounded up and imprisoned or worse.
Central Planning tyrants will not permit defiance from States, Governors and legislative bodies to their edicts. They state that course of action was settled in 1865 and we have no recourse except to submit, or the Courts continuously tell the States they have no authority to refuse what Mordor demands, or what their people overwhelmingly vote for.
It is stupid and foolish to expect corrupt, vain and evil men to comply with the rule of law and the will of the people they hold in contempt and ignore.
The Messianics (of which I am one, you might recall) were almost non-existent ten years ago, and now they are everywhere.
From one Sabbatarian to another: Shabbat Shalom!
Cruz was treated like a red-headed stepchild by the GOP establishment, the DEMS, Fox News (in particular Sean Hannity) and the MSM. Ironically, the liberal media treated him at times better than conservative news. I find it quite disheartening and appalling when a member of our party stands up and defends our rights, and freedoms, including religious liberty, of "We the People" under the Constitution and is greatly chastised, ridiculed and attacked for doing so. Cruz is absolutely 100% correct, everyone who is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump will bear that responsibility going forward. I find it interesting that many members of Congress are now very reluctant to be associated with Trump and some are declining to be his VP. That speaks volumes. My question is, where were they when they very well could have easily voiced support for Cruz? When Cruz came back to the Senate, he was warmly received and applauded; certainly a change of tune.
Fifteen other candidates competed against Trump. None of those candidates were as vile and vulgar towards each other as Trump was to them. Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others. If we simply take a step back and look at the huge difference in character alone between Cruz and Trump it is equally disheartening that the masses would chose a bully over a gentlemen to lead our country and to set an example for our children. They chose someone who obviously lacks moral character over someone of great integrity. What does this say about the mindset of his supporters? To think that this is what newly acquired voters are drawn to is frightening. It indicates that we have become a society of bullies, liars, and cheaters who verbally abuse one another and that is now acceptable. All I can say now, is God, please help us!
#Never Trump Don't blame me. I support Cruz.
Good, I'm sure there'll be a nice cold stool at the end of "Grumble's Tavern". Winners don't like losers. "Swingin' Dildo Teddy"Trump winning the nomination doesn't make any of his supporters "winners." It only makes Hitlery a winner. Congratulations!
@INVAR
While I am largely in agreement with INVAR, yours libertybele, is near the eternal hope of rejuvenation in this American Republic.
It starts in the precincts, grows in the state houses, blossoms in the Governorship.
One of the things that this election season has discounted is the TEA Party. And it is worth the fight. All is not lost. The power of the fed is at the whim of the states. We HAVE TO keep fighting the good fight to overturn.
And if not, there is yet one more step - revolution - if no other step remains.
And while I am commiserate with you INVAR, I will not give it up until there is not a single vestige of our liberties existing, and I and my compatriots have no breath left within us. Until that day, hope remains.
Good, I'm sure there'll be a nice cold stool at the end of "Grumble's Tavern". Winners don't like losers. "Swingin' Dildo Teddy"
Trump winning the nomination doesn't make any of his supporters "winners." It only makes Hitlery a winner. Congratulations!
The biggest losers are the American people. Trump and Hillary will continue this country down the same path of destruction that we are on and Cruz is correct; Those who contributed to the rise of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will have to "bear that responsibility going forward."
Don't blame me I support Cruz. #NeverTrump
I've never quite understood this fascination by Trump supporters with "winning." What good is winning when the prize is a metaphorical sack of manure?
Except ... the voting public would also have to change their affiliation as some states are closed primary states. While I understand the premise, it is unlikely to happen and not feasible.Well, then those in those states should push for change. In either case, one has to determine if the support the left (Dems AND Repubs) or the constitution. The GOP has abandoned its traditional principles and values. So if one wants the leftist values of the GOP or DemPub unity party, then by all means, stay.
That's so true. You've got to start locally and branch out. A fish rots from the head, but a tree grows from the roots up.
Such opportunity... Right down the drain.
Hide the fact you supported Cruz. Burn all papers. Delete all postings. Destroy all campaign literature connecting yourself from him. It's the only thing which will prevent your descendants from rending their garments in shame. He would have surely sold them into bondage.
Sorry but I'll need more advice than to "pray".
I'm not discussing doctrine or catechism. I am discussing faith and the Christian religion in the exact same manner the Founding Fathers themselves discussed it when debating and arguing about establishing the nation.
Or does the mere mention of The Creator and Christianity so offend you that you seek any mention of it to be banished and prohibited?
[/quote
:amen: Those that find the mention of 'God' or 'Jesus Christ' in a country that was founded upon Christian principles is very unsettling as well as those that find a Consitiutional Conservative too far to the right! Like it or not this country was founded upon Christian principles and the Constitution is the cornerstone of this country. Straying away from both is why this country is in the mess that it's in.
but I can't vote for either one.
#NeverTrump
I've never quite understood this fascination by Trump supporters with "winning." What good is winning when the prize is a metaphorical sack of manure?
I don't consider the 2nd Amendment, secure borders, fair trade and the security our the country a sack of manure.
Nor do I. But any old lout can say "second amendment, secure borders, fair trade and the security of our country." It's easy. You just open your mouth, let the air out past your vocal cords, and move your tongue and lips.
Then what's the reference of a sack of manure pertain to? Never mind, I just reviewed the thread posts and see you are one of "them".
Then what's the reference of a sack of manure pertain to? Never mind, I just reviewed the thread posts and see you are one of "them".Still continuing the divisiveness! No way to get unity that way, as if it where possible.
Still continuing the divisiveness! No way to get unity that way, as if it where possible.
Don't kid yourself. They do not want unity.That's ok. I've rejected the so called chosen GOP candidate too. The Two "major" parties are too liberal for me.
They want total obedience, total submission and total devotion to their political savior - or, they want you punished, destroyed, banished, and hung or shot for treason.
Still continuing the divisiveness! No way to get unity that way, as if it where possible.
Don't kid yourself. They do not want unity.
They want total obedience, total submission and total devotion to their political savior - or, they want you punished, destroyed, banished, and hung or shot for treason.
Still continuing the divisiveness! No way to get unity that way, as if it where possible.We are not the ones in the wrong with heads full of bad information feeding off of far left agitprop sources. The ones being nice to you are the democrats taking advantage of ya.
We are not the ones in the wrong with heads full of bad information feeding off of far left agitprop sources. The ones being nice to you are the democrats taking advantage of ya.
Bad information? Are you denying the Trump has flip-flopped on every issue? Are you denying that Trump does not know the functionality of the government? Are you denying that Trump has not attacked his former GOP opponents more than he has attacked Hillary? Are you denying that Trump stated that he needs to be more establishment? Are you denying that Trump is a narcissist? Are you denying that Trump advocated for universal healthcare? Are you denying that he supports the assault weapons ban? Are you denying that Trump supported the Supreme Court’s decision giving public authorities the right to seize private land for economic development by private investors? The list goes on. No, I don't consider that I have bad information, I consider Trump supporters to be poorly informed; either that or they just have their heads buried in the sand.Since libertybele beat me to the punch, I have to echo the comment. My positions are based on thoughtful reasoning of the candidates, not based on some unreasoned, unrationale, fanatical following of a celebrity full of himself.
Bad information? Are you denying the Trump has flip-flopped on every issue? Are you denying that Trump does not know the functionality of the government? Are you denying that Trump has not attacked his former GOP opponents more than he has attacked Hillary? Are you denying that Trump stated that he needs to be more establishment? Are you denying that Trump is a narcissist? Are you denying that Trump advocated for universal healthcare? Are you denying that he supports the assault weapons ban? Are you denying that Trump supported the Supreme Court’s decision giving public authorities the right to seize private land for economic development by private investors? The list goes on. No, I don't consider that I have bad information, I consider Trump supporters to be poorly informed; either that or they just have their heads buried in the sand.Yes I am denying he has flip Flopped on every issue. For one the Deception taken by the liberal/#neverTrump is to substitute a proposed tactic for Goal stated. Then to claim because a tactic changes it nullifies the Objective the tactic was for. He has not walked back building the wall, stopping Illegals and drugs, he has revised the tactics of how to achieve that goal as the dynamics change. Same with the keeping ISIS from invading via refugees that's still the same. The tactics of how to achieve it have changed as more information is uncovered. The Deception is where the Trump haters take straight talk of changing tactics and spin that to claim reversal of objectives.
Yes I am denying he has flip Flopped on every issue. For one the Deception taken by the liberal/#neverTrump is to substitute a proposed tactic for Goal stated. Then to claim because a tactic changes it nullifies the Objective the tactic was for. He has not walked back building the wall, stopping Illegals and drugs, he has revised the tactics of how to achieve that goal as the dynamics change. Same with the keeping ISIS from invading via refugees that's still the same. The tactics of how to achieve it have changed as more information is uncovered. The Deception is where the Trump haters take straight talk of changing tactics and spin that to claim reversal of objectives.
Little Fact, Trump is not shy or sneaky, If he is going to say something he gets in your face and says it. He does not rely on word smiths to twist subtle sound bytes. He has said he changed on two positions: Abortions and Guns. both because of life changing events. The point is he was direct and clear he changed and why.
As you have seen in other threads the claimed walk back of self-funding the General election never happened.
Same with the Veterans charity, another lie by the haters with bad info.
First of all, quit accusing me of hating Trump.
First of all, quit accusing me of hating Trump. Hate is a very strong and nasty word. I dislike the man for various numerous reasons, but hate? I've never stated that I hate Trump..."haters with bad info" is obviously a Trump talking point. The only deception here is from Trump himself; saying one thing and in the next breath stating quite another. He met with the mayor of Laredo, TX and stated that he needed to soften his stance on the fence and illegal immigration. He is in favor of the assault weapons ban -- life changing event? Either your for it or you're against it. Same with abortion. I'm trying to figure out what life changing event happened to Trump that he had an 'epiphany' that changed his mind on either. Nothing more than Trump deception. Yes, his walk back on self funding has happened ... he loaned money to himself ... and right now him paying himself back is in question. As for the vets, he raised less than $5M and donated $1M; however they are still awaiting a large portion of that money.Both your proofs of Trump's deception have been debunked on these threads. For example if you looked for the threads you see were they have not yet collected all promised donations and they have distributed millions. As far as the Loan that is a non issue - if and until he pays himself back its only a claimed possibility, has not happened and if and until it does there is no deception. And you may not be a hater but there is hate at Trump on this board by some people.
As for bad information ... the TRUTH is the TRUTH period. Donald J. Trump is nothing more than a con artist.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-could-still-use-campaign-donations-pay-himself-back-36m-loan-after-saying-he-wouldnt
http://www.wsj.com/articles/veterans-charities-await-funds-raised-by-donald-trump-1460069309
He is in favor of the assault weapons ban -- l
As for bad information ... the TRUTH is the TRUTH period. Donald J. Trump is nothing more than a con artist.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-could-still-use-campaign-donations-pay-himself-back-36m-loan-after-saying-he-wouldnt
http://www.wsj.com/articles/veterans-charities-await-funds-raised-by-donald-trump-1460069309
Both your proofs of Trump's deception have been debunked on these threads. For example if you looked for the threads you see were they have not yet collected all promised donations and they have distributed millions. As far as the Loan that is a non issue - if and until he pays himself back its only a claimed possibility, has not happened and if and until it does there is no deception. And you may not be a hater but there is hate at Trump on this board by some people.
I've posted the links, I've posted the proof. If you don't care to believe it; that's not my problem. That's your problem. ****sheep****Yeah saw the Liberal links you posted and like the ones I have gone into detail about in other threads are untruths. Liberals/#neverTrump deceptively swap a straight talk discussion about tactics on how to achieve an objective for the Objective itself to make their BS Walk-Back Claims. If the wall because of labor issues ends up ten feet less does not mean the promise of a wall was walked back, etc. As far as the Self-funding one. He said he was not going to pay himself back, unless and until he reneges on that promise there is nothing there to support the claim he waked it back. As far as Vet amounts it was discussed on other threads that 1. They did not collect all the money pledged yet, and 2 they have distributed over 3.1 million dollars of it.
Yeah saw the Liberal links you posted and like the ones I have gone into detail about in other threads are untruths. Liberals/#neverTrump deceptively swap a straight talk discussion about tactics on how to achieve an objective for the Objective itself to make their BS Walk-Back Claims. If the wall because of labor issues ends up ten feet less does not mean the promise of a wall was walked back, etc. As far as the Self-funding one. He said he was not going to pay himself back, unless and until he reneges on that promise there is nothing there to support the claim he waked it back. As far as Vet amounts it was discussed on other threads that 1. They did not collect all the money pledged yet, and 2 they have distributed over 3.1 million dollars of it.
When the Left-Wing/#neverTrump claims of walk back are looked at with the same level of scrutiny that was used for the Hit Pieces on Cruz. Then you can claim some kind of moral basis for the Walk-Back claims. Until then its nothing more then normalcy bias and Establishment agenda disrupting critical thinking skills .
There are sheep here all right - Its the gullible #neverTrump people failing to use common sense and apply the same standards of review to the Anti-Trump hit pieces from the left that they applied to the Anti-Cruz hit pieces.
...Liberals/#neverTrump deceptively...Why do you continually confuse #NeverTrump with liberals or the left-wing? In fact it is so far the opposite. The fact is that the liberal left spectrum is shared by Bernie, Hillary and Trump. The left resent Trump for spitting part of their traditional voters and the conservative right resent Trump for being the Liberal he is. Most of the #NeverTrump are conservatives who resent his NY values and non-conservative principles, if he even has any principles other than self serving satisfaction. The #NeverTrump is also a backlash at the GOP for abandoning it's former conservative values and continuously giving in to the left.
...the Left-Wing/#neverTrump claims...
Why do you continually confuse #NeverTrump with liberals or the left-wing? In fact it is so far the opposite. The fact is that the liberal left spectrum is shared by Bernie, Hillary and Trump. The left resent Trump for spitting part of their traditional voters and the conservative right resent Trump for being the Liberal he is. Most of the #NeverTrump are conservatives who resent his NY values and non-conservative principles, if he even has any principles other than self serving satisfaction. The #NeverTrump is also a backlash at the GOP for abandoning it's former conservative values and continuously giving in to the left.
Why do you continually confuse #NeverTrump with liberals or the left-wing? In fact it is so far the opposite. The fact is that the liberal left spectrum is shared by Bernie, Hillary and Trump. The left resent Trump for spitting part of their traditional voters and the conservative right resent Trump for being the Liberal he is. Most of the #NeverTrump are conservatives who resent his NY values and non-conservative principles, if he even has any principles other than self serving satisfaction. The #NeverTrump is also a backlash at the GOP for abandoning it's former conservative values and continuously giving in to the left.Because the Trump hit pieces are coming from Salon, Washington Compost, RedSate Presstitures, NYT, etc.
Because the Trump hit pieces are coming from Salon, Washington Compost, RedSate Presstitures, NYT, etc.You're still confused. Of course the traditional liberal is pushing AntiTrump because he is invading on Bernie and Hillary's territory. He is an outsider to both sides. But the fact is that the #NeverTrump reprehension is based on that doesn't represent the conservative right. So to use the argument that the left is #NeverTrump because of the far left social wackos is a twisting of the facts.
There is also the fact of how #neverTrump was created and who funds it oppose Trump operations - far left billionaires.
There is also the fact it lies like a liberal twisting and spinning to make anything Trump says fit its narrative.
There is also the problem that to an observer there is no Difference between them as far as their articulated agenda - to get Hillary elected by suppressing the Conservative base.
It does not help that some of the most aggressive #neverTrump people also argue very liberal positions (Abnormal marriage, etc) and push liberal propaganda (Unemployment is low, etc) nullifying their purported image they oppose Trump because hes too liberal.
You're still confused. Of course the traditional liberal is pushing AntiTrump because he is invading on Bernie and Hillary's territory. He is an outsider to both sides. But the fact is that the #NeverTrump reprehension is based on that doesn't represent the conservative right. So to use the argument that the left is #NeverTrump because of the far left social wackos is a twisting of the facts.Yet #neverTrumps leadership and funding is far from Conservative. Its far left Billionaires and Establishment Rinos. In other words, its a mile wide but has no conservative depth fed and supported by the left.
Yet #neverTrumps leadership and funding is far from Conservative. Its far left Billionaires and Establishment Rinos. In other words, its a mile wide but has no conservative depth fed and supported by the left.Huh? :shrug: :banghead:
No he is NOT in favor of banning assault weapons. You're either misinformed or intentionally misleading. Yes, the truth is the truth. You sure don't have a corner on it.
Quote from: Mechanicos on Today at 08:50:12 AM
Yet #neverTrumps leadership and funding is far from Conservative. Its far left Billionaires and Establishment Rinos. In other words, its a mile wide but has no conservative depth fed and supported by the left.
Huh? :shrug: :banghead:
Yet #neverTrumps leadership and funding is far from Conservative. Its far left Billionaires and Establishment Rinos. In other words, its a mile wide but has no conservative depth fed and supported by the left.What funding? To whom, exactly?
What funding? To whom, exactly?
The meme is that anyone who does not vote for Trump and vocalizes their problems and issues with the King Presumptive, is an obviously paid shill of Hildabeast's campaign and the Left.
I don't think you're a paid shill. I think you're promoting Hillary's victory for free .... because you want her in the WH. This is mostly likely why you were thrown off FR. :shrug:
Huh? :shrug: :banghead:https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/news/gop-tech-leaders-hold-secret-meeting-stop-trump-171532249.html?ref=gs
This is what passes for healing rifts. Trump supporters who come right out and say that anyone who doesn't vote for their boy wants Hillary in the White House.
Your continued ass-hattery is driving me further into the #NeverTrump camp. You're not playing to Trump's audience, RIV, so insults don't work here. In fact, you're vastly outnumbered on this forum and look to be flailing.
#neverTrump Cruz people being lead around by the nose by these people. Not a one of which is Conservative or is acting in your best interests.
That tired old, worn out, brain dead insult is not getting any traction, regardless of how many times you regurgitate it. **nononono*Yet looking at the line ups: On the Trump side until he won the Nomination we had Patriots, Conservatives and Evangelicals in very large numbers. On the #neverTrump side is Liberals, Hillary, Muslims, Illegals, Soros. Establishment RINOS, China, etc. and a small spattering of Cruz supporters.
I don't think you're a paid shill. I think you're promoting Hillary's victory for free .... because you want her in the WH. This is most likely why you were thrown off FR.
The fact is #neverTrump began as a joint Liberal/Establishment operation that had nothing to do with morals or conservatism. And, to this day its propaganda sources are left wing MSM, Far left publications and bought and paid for shills like Red State, Beck and Levin.
Yet #neverTrumps leadership and funding is far from Conservative. Its far left Billionaires and Establishment Rinos. In other words, its a mile wide but has no conservative depth fed and supported by the left.
I'm sure you have credible proof of this right?http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,206352.msg892568.html#msg892568
Yet looking at the line ups: On the Trump side until he won the Nomination we had Patriots, Conservatives and Evangelicals in very large numbers. On the #neverTrump side is Liberals, Hillary, Muslims, Illegals, Soros. Establishment RINOS, China, etc. and a small spattering of Cruz supporters.Your argument makes no sense what so ever. What Patriots and conservatives did Trump have before? I wouldn't mix Cruz supporters with all those other supporters. That is apples and oranges different.
The fact is #neverTrump began as a joint Liberal/Establishment operation that had nothing to do with morals or conservatism. And, to this day its propaganda sources are left wing MSM, Far left publications and bought and paid for shills like Red State, Beck and Levin. One need only look at the #neverTrump leadership such as Romney to see its not about conserving anything but the ruling class. So yes, Led around by the nose fits.
If we get back to the original premise of the article; Cruz was treated unfairly in the GOP primary and everyone who was responsible for the rise of Donald Trump, will bear that responsibility going forward. There is no going back, we should focus on moving forward... Ensuring that we vote in as many conservatives as we can on the ballot. There are 34 Senate seats up for election and the DEMS only need 5 seats to take back the majority. All 435 House seats will be up for election. Reality is we have 535 members of Congress. Let's make them work for us!
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016
Cruz. Reigniting the Promise of America!
This is what passes for healing rifts.
When you want to heal the rift, Sink, you'll meet me half way. Ping me when you're ready.
The rift with Trump is more than just him. He has hijacked an already broke GOP. Trump along with his GOP partners of McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, Preibus and the like can have their party. Again. It is not JUST Trump.
That's nonsense.
The GOP pushed Bush...then Rubio...then accepted Cruz. The same "Cruz" who was openly disdained by the Party Leadership of both Chambers.
More than once.
You should light a candle in front of the Baby Jesus tonight that there IS a Donald Trump grabbing the reins of this runaway stage called the Republican Party.
And while all you Trotskyites are willing to push European Socialism on us...just because you can't accept that "your boy" (as Sink is inclined to say), lost.
I would have liked a candidate with Cruz' commitment to the Constitution, and a strong Conservative judiciary.
I'll accept a man who will, ...economically return us to 1985. When Reagan's Boom...the greatest in American History, was just entering 2nd gear.
Won't you? :shrug:
Trade wars will cripple the economy. Surely you know that.
Trump doesn't know the first thing about the economy, except as a means to drag you saps into supporting him. His tariffs won't pass muster with Congress, and his tax plan, with it's $10 trillion added to the debt, is DOA.
When those Sanders voters go back to Hillary, Trump will never be ahead in another poll from now until November.
That's nonsense.
The GOP pushed Bush...then Rubio...then accepted Cruz. The same "Cruz" who was openly disdained by the Party Leadership of both Chambers.
More than once.
You should light a candle in front of the Baby Jesus tonight that there IS a Donald Trump grabbing the reins of this runaway stage called the Republican Party.
And while all you Trotskyites are willing to push European Socialism on us...just because you can't accept that "your boy" (as Sink is inclined to say), lost.
I would have liked a candidate with Cruz' commitment to the Constitution, and a strong Conservative judiciary.
I'll accept a man who will, ...economically return us to 1985. When Reagan's Boom...the greatest in American History, was just entering 2nd gear.
Won't you? :shrug:
They probably won't DC. These people's minds are set in concrete and nothing we can say will be accepted. They have said "Never" and I take them at their word - all we are doing is stirring up their hurt and anger. Let them gnash their teeth and tear at their clothes - they're not going to change.I don't think Cruz is a fit within the GOP. He is a true conservative patriot and you can see by the rancor within the GOP that they no longer appreciate the values embodied by the party of Lincoln. Cruz is only in the GOP because of the artificial restriction maintained by the two party elitests.
But I'd bet that if Ted Cruz was in Trump's place now - and he was working with the establishment in trying to help the down-ticket candidates in raising money for the party's fight against Hillary and the Democrats - there would be no cries of "He's working with the establishment now - after pretending to be an outsider!"
The meme is that anyone who does not vote for Trump and vocalizes their problems and issues with the King Presumptive, is an obviously paid shill of Hildabeast's campaign and the Left.
Because conformity is demanded, and if you refuse to conform behind Trump, you must be receiving bribes from Hillary and work for the enemy… so they tell us ad nauseum.
But I'd bet that if Ted Cruz was in Trump's place now - and he was working with the establishment in trying to help the down-ticket candidates in raising money for the party's fight against Hillary and the Democrats - there would be no cries of "He's working with the establishment now - after pretending to be an outsider!"
They probably won't DC. These people's minds are set in concrete and nothing we can say will be accepted. They have said "Never" and I take them at their word - all we are doing is stirring up their hurt and anger. Let them gnash their teeth and tear at their clothes - they're not going to change.
But I'd bet that if Ted Cruz was in Trump's place now - and he was working with the establishment in trying to help the down-ticket candidates in raising money for the party's fight against Hillary and the Democrats - there would be no cries of "He's working with the establishment now - after pretending to be an outsider!"
I don't think you're a paid shill. I think you're promoting Hillary's victory for free .... because you want her in the WH. This is most likely why you were thrown off FR. :shrug:
Right, because Mark Levin is a bought and paid for shill by the Establishment and the Far Left.
Discounts anything you have to say in the name of Conservatism - because you not only do not recognize what Conservatism actually is - you hate and have gone war and make it your every effort to smear, insult and castigate every single Conservative who doesn't bend the knee to your King Presumptive.
In short - I believe you are simply projecting what you actually are, onto everyone who will not fall in line behind Trump.
Clever Political tactic that doesn't work on the Principled.
When you want to heal the rift, Sink, you'll meet me half way. Ping me when you're ready.
EXCELLENT post! That's clearly the case of every one who left or were banned from FR. They were not-so-secretly "shills for Hill".
I think TBR should ban all of these despicable fakes, just like JimRob does on FR!!
/s
#################
# Trump/Alinsky 2016!!! #
#################
EXCELLENT post! That's clearly the case of every one who left or were banned from FR. They were not-so-secretly "shills for Hill".
I think TBR should ban all of these despicable fakes, just like JimRob does on FR!!
/s
Because Trumpkins don't need no badges nor proof!! They just know you're a liar from reading your mind, and aren't afraid to put you in your place, either.
:bsflag: 8bs8
With the deepest respect, I was thinking more along the lines of simply repealing all Obama regulations put into effect during his tenure...thereby freeing American small business to thrive...translating into jobs.
I don't think Cruz is a fit within the GOP. He is a true conservative patriot and you can see by the rancor within the GOP that they no longer appreciate the values embodied by the party of Lincoln. Cruz is only in the GOP because of the artificial restriction maintained by the two party elitests.
If conservative = greeting the invaders at the border with soccer balls, gift baskets and nubby blankets, yeah, I guess Cruz is a conservative.
As much as I'd like that to happen...you can bet the Dems won't allow it. And there's that issue of Trump wanting to implement tariffs and "punish" companies that move work overseas.
Regardless of who the GOP nominee is or would have been...if they truly want to free small business and big business for that matter to thrive again...then there is going to have to be some serious restraint put on some agencies like the EPA and the Dept. of The Interior to stop making laws disguised as "policy" that is currently crushing all types of business in the country.
That's exactly to what I was referring, @txradioguy !
Restraint or castration of your aforementioned agencies would be a start.
Then, as as happened in NY State's campaign to attract business back to the State....they promise a decade of no State taxes owed.
The Federal Government and respective States can do the same.
I honestly believe Trump has the opportunity to show the younger American and immigrant generations, that Republicans aren't the Boogeyman, but rahter, the ONLY path to achieve the American Dream.
If conservative = greeting the invaders at the border with soccer balls, gift baskets and nubby blankets, yeah, I guess Cruz is a conservative.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz praised the relief efforts of Glenn Beck and Mercury One in the border town of McAllen, Texas on Saturday, where the charity Beck founded worked to provide food, clothing, water and toys to the illegal immigrant children who have been streaming into the U.S.
But Cruz also stressed the importance of sending those kids back home.
“Let me say thank you to Mercury One, thank you to Glenn, for leading on this issue, for raising over two million dollars to provide food, to provide medicine, to provide toys to these kids,” Cruz said. “These children, while they’re here, we need to care for them well, we need to demonstrate American values.”
Cruz said it was appropriate for private charities, such as Mercury One, to show “Christian love” to the illegal immigrant children, but he stressed the need to return the children to their home countries as quickly as possible.
“It’s critical, as well, that we need to uphold the rule of law,” Cruz said. “The reason these children are coming is they believe they’ll get amnesty. As long as that promise of amnesty is there, more and more children will come, and more and more children will be brutalized, physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, by violent drug cartels, the coyotes who are bringing them in.”
Cruz cited legislation he has filed to combat President Barack Obama’s policy of deferred deportation for younger immigrants.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/20/ted-cruz-thanks-glenn-beck-for-border-relief-work-while-slamming-amnesty/
As usual, the Branch Trumpidians onlyreport their side of the story. This is why Trump supporters have no creditability.
Yeah because bringing them in 2-300 at a time with H2B visa to do jobs Americans are desperate to have is sooooooo much better.
As usual, the Branch Trumpidians onlyreport their side of the story. This is why Trump supporters have no creditability.
That is also your favorite candidates plan as well, although he'll pretend he's against it. But you'll never admit it.
RedState:
Ted Cruz: It is not. And in this circumstance, there are changed circumstances, and anyone responds to changed circumstances. I have supported and I still support the original idea of the H-1B program which is to bring in very high skilled workers to produce jobs and economic growth. That’s a good thing, when you have more jobs and economic growth.
I'm not talking about the H-1B visa program ONC....pay attention and stop moving the goalposts.Cruz wants to bypass all the H's and just give them Amnesty.
I said the H2B visa program...there's a difference.
Cruz wants to bypass all the H's and just give them Amnesty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuGzdyt0xOc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuGzdyt0xOc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwVrfydjOI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwVrfydjOI)
If you'd actually listened to what he says in the video's you wouldn't have to lie about him supposedly wanting to bypass anything.Sure and he did not hand out gift baskets to illegals at the Border either....
I guess honesty is just too much to ask of you at this point.
Sure and he did not hand out gift baskets to illegals at the Border either....
Sure and he did not hand out gift baskets to illegals at the Border either....
They gave stuffed animals to children you obtuse nitwit.
It's not a matter of being obtuse. It is a matter of being dishonest.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump continues to support amnesty for all the "good" illegals.Keep repeating that false narrative.
If they cannot see the value of a Trump presidency vs a Clinton presidency...even in economic terms...they're hopeless.You'd like that, wouldn't you?
And can drop dead. I want him to live and 'suffer' Trump's many successes. :laugh:
They gave stuffed animals to children you obtuse nitwit. Quit twisting reality.Thanks for admitting that besides pushing Amnesty Cruz was handing out gifts to illegals.
I guess you would have preferred the children be beaten and tossed in the Rio Grande.
I was trying to be nice for once. :tongue2:
But you're right it's dishonest. Lying by omission is still lying.
They gave stuffed animals to children you obtuse nitwit. Quit twisting reality.
I guess you would have preferred the children be beaten and tossed in the Rio Grande.
If "trying to be nice..." is calling somebody "..an obtuse nitwit", suggest you try harder. :laugh:
You'd like that, wouldn't you?
A Trump Presidency that kills and imprisons dissidents.
Going onto the quote board...
If "trying to be nice..." is calling somebody "..an obtuse nitwit", suggest you try harder. :laugh:
The word obtuse is so insulting! (Sorry DC ... trying to find some humor these days). Peace.
Attacks against candidates is one thing, attacks on individuals is unacceptable.
Well the original word I had there was jackass...so yes I did tone it down a bit... :tongue2: which is hard since I'm a crusty old Sr. NCO. :laugh:Congratulations. I'm a USMC Vet myself.
Well the original word I had there was jackass...so yes I did tone it down a bit... :tongue2: which is hard since I'm a crusty old Sr. NCO. :laugh:
I knew you had other words in mind. :beer:
That said, I'm with @Mechanicos on this.
That's not at all what I said, @jmyrle.
Telling someone to "drop dead", has nothing to do with imprisoning anyone.
I was merely putting everybody on notice, here in the forum that the vain, hard-core, aggressive, in-your-face Trump-haters can go to hell, once it's 'President-elect' Donald Trump.
Are you 'okay', jmyrle? I ask that as concerned fellow poster.
Keep repeating that false narrative.
It ain't false.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/politics/donald-trump-immigration-plan-healthcare-flip-flop/index.html
I'll keep refuting the untruths till kingdom come as long as you folks keep repeating them.
Yet "D" Teddy's lies go unchallenged. Quite the Christian action.
Yet "D" Teddy's lies go unchallenged. Quite the Christian action.
It ain't false.Its CNN, Of course you are posting a false narrative. If you would apply the same standards you use to vet articles on Cruz to Trump articles you would see you are being tricked by the enemy.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/politics/donald-trump-immigration-plan-healthcare-flip-flop/index.html
I'll keep refuting the untruths till kingdom come as long as you folks keep repeating them.
You and the rest of the Branch Trumpidians keep saying he lied...yet fail to provide anything close to proof of the alleged lies.We keep giving you books of evidence Teddy lied but all #neverTrump does is eats the covers.
Why is that?
Its CNN, Of course you are posting a false narrative. If you would apply the same standards you use to vet articles on Cruz to Trump articles you would see you are being tricked by the enemy.
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20140717_Stop_Obamas_Amnesty_Act.pdf (http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20140717_Stop_Obamas_Amnesty_Act.pdf)
“The staggering conditions that children are being subjected to are a direct result of the amnesty that President Obama illegally and unilaterally enacted in 2012, which caused the number of unaccompanied minors to skyrocket . . . The only way to stop the border crisis is to stop President Obama’s amnesty.”
-Ted Cruz, 15 July 2014
But hey, why let 'truth' get in the way of a good Cruz bash, eh?
LOL. Its a direct QUOTE, in context, from Donald of Orange himself.A quote on TACTICS is not a change of position. Stop substituting one for the other.
You folks are too much.
:patriot:Words vs Fruit of the Tree.
We keep giving you books of evidence Teddy lied but all #neverTrump does is eats the covers.
:banghead:
We can start with the well documented evidence Cruz lied in Iowa re Carson. I know you have seen that and ignored it.
...hmm... books of evidence. Really? This is becoming comical. Which books might those be? Art of the Deal? The only 'evidence' of Cruz lies are Trump talking points. Trump lies...he himself stated that he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose voters. Now, what flavour of kool-aid did you drink again? :silly: ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep****
Yes, those that bolstered Trump will bear that responsibility going forward; including his supporters. Funny, how you can tell a lot about somebody by the company they keep. I stand with Cruz!
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20140717_Stop_Obamas_Amnesty_Act.pdf (http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20140717_Stop_Obamas_Amnesty_Act.pdf)
“The staggering conditions that children are being subjected to are a direct result of the amnesty that President Obama illegally and unilaterally enacted in 2012, which caused the number of unaccompanied minors to skyrocket . . . The only way to stop the border crisis is to stop President Obama’s amnesty.”
-Ted Cruz, 15 July 2014
But hey, why let 'truth' get in the way of a good Cruz bash, eh?
They gave stuffed animals to children you obtuse nitwit. Quit twisting reality.
I guess you would have preferred the children be beaten and tossed in the Rio Grande.
We can start with the well documented evidence Cruz lied in Iowa re Carson. I know you have seen that and ignored it.
:patriot: :patriot: Funny how the Trump supporters are clinging to any hope of Trump actually being above board on any issue...oh that's right as Donny stated, they are merely 'suggestions' on the issues. :silly: :silly:
Trump isn't the one running as the "only Constitutional Conservative"
Words vs Fruit of the Tree.
He pushed Amnesty for Illegals and gave gifts to them at the border. His Wife is an author of the Elites plan to create the North American union. Those actions are consistent with the articulated NAU plan.
Because conformity is demanded, and if you refuse to conform behind Trump, you must be receiving bribes from Hillary and work for the enemy… so they tell us ad nauseum.
------
What? Are you trying to tell me that you didn't get your check from the Clinton Foundation this month? Heck, I got a bonus for all my #NeverTrump posts. Man, I got the secret email decoder ring and everything! /s
Trump isn't the one running as the "only Constitutional Conservative". "D" Teddy was.
No actually, it wasn't ignored at all. Nor am I going to rehash one of Trump's orchestrations. That issue came up long before you became a member of the forum. I provided several links/documentation that was ignored by Trumpsters along with Donny's original insult calling Carson a 'pathological like child molester". As time goes on, and Trump is becoming caught up in his own lies, I now believe that Donny circulated the rumor hoping to bring Cruz down with it...you know sort of like the lie Trump told about Cruz exposing the nude photo of Melania... Now...exactly who's lying here?? Did I mention that Trump hired Carson and then dismissed him within a couple of weeks? Hard to find any credibility between Trump and Carson.First I'm not a noob, I was away for awhile because of work. The documented paper trail and recorded phone calls plus witness statements from inside the Cruz camp itself make this irrefutable proof Cruz camp lied. Attacking Trump in no way changes this since none of it is from Trump but all from the people involved themselves.
Trump lies and all those who bolstered Trump, bear responsibility going forward.
Both of those statements are outright untrue. No matter how many times you repeat them, they will not become true simply because you are repeating them.Here is Teddy boy himself refuting you:
We can start with the well documented evidence Cruz lied in Iowa re Carson.
Well-documented? Seriously? I have asked you for that documentation on numerous occasions, yet you fail each and every time to produce it. So here you are again making the same false claim - knowing that you are unable to support it. That is what regular folks call 'lying'.Look up above your post.
Of course you could prove me wrong and produce this quote that Ted Cruz allegedly uttered regarding Carson that you claim to be untrue. Or you could fess up and admit that no such statement exists. Or you can keep on lying. It's your choice.
Words vs Fruit of the Tree.
He pushed Amnesty for Illegals and gave gifts to them at the border. His Wife is an author of the Elites plan to create the North American union. Those actions are consistent with the articulated NAU plan.
LOL. Its a direct QUOTE, in context, from Donald of Orange himself.
You folks are too much.
Actually, Heidi's involvement in the NAU and Ted's involvement in the NAU were very much a concern to me as I spent time researching the NAU and was involved in trying to stop the NAU/SPP and Trans Texas Corridor years ago. Many at the time didn't believe me. At the time Ron Paul actually submitted a resolution that the U.S. not be involved in the NAU. Further evidence I found linked back to Rudy Giuliani and his law firm. I have not been able to find any hard evidence linking Cruz, although Perry is involved. After I began helping with the Cruz campaign I was questioned and told that Heidi Cruz was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and had drawn up plans for the NAU, I could not find any evidence nor was her name listed on their rosters. I don't proclaim to be an expert on the subject by any means. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that the possibility doesn't exist, I just haven't found strong evidence, nor do I find it in Cruz's character, how he's voted and what he's stood for and his fights in the Supreme Court.Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful response. re Heidi. I do not have it handy but her name is on a roster for the NAU plan out of Canada online someplace. Would have to dig for it now. I think that video I posted on Cruz and the NAU shows it bit not sure where.
Jump to Donald Trump for a moment. I have no solid evidence, I'm merely going by gut feeling. I don't doubt that Trump will build a wall. It is no secret that he has NY ties with Giuliani. I am inclined he will build the wall AND put toll roads all the way from TX, through KS (central hub) and on up into Canada. That was the original plan of Giuliani -- he stood/stands to make a fortune off the tolls and roads ... I have no doubt that Trump will benefit handsomely as well. Again. Just my gut feeling.
You got a decoder ring? I am going to sue you and the Clinton Foundation for violating my female rights - for giving you, a male, a decoder ring, and I, a female, did not get one. A pox on you for violating my female rights! /s
@INVAR
Well-documented? Seriously? I have asked you for that documentation on numerous occasions, yet you fail each and every time to produce it. So here you are again making the same false claim - knowing that you are unable to support it. That is what regular folks call 'lying'.
Of course you could prove me wrong and produce this quote that Ted Cruz allegedly uttered regarding Carson that you claim to be untrue. Or you could fess up and admit that no such statement exists. Or you can keep on lying. It's your choice.
The lie, repeated often enough, becomes the "truth".
Never more true than with these folks.
That's because Trump isn't a Constitutional Conservative. He isn't a Conservative. And he doesn't know what the Constitution says.
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
-Joseph Göbbels-
Trump has correctly stated "It's not the CONSERVATIVE PARTY it's the Republican Party.".
Cruz's words say conservative, his actions prove others. His disciples follow the "Hands over ears 'LA, LA, LA' I can't hear you" play.
Sometimes it's better to 'ignore' someone than to try have a discussion with someone who is lost and has their head buried in the sand.
this irrefutable proof Cruz camp lied.
Elsewhere, you claim that "Cruz lied".
And then give links that show neither.
Trump has correctly stated "It's not the CONSERVATIVE PARTY it's the Republican Party."
Cruz's words say conservative, his actions prove others. His disciples follow the "Hands over ears 'LA, LA, LA' I can't hear you" play.
"I am the ONLY 'Constitutional Conservative' seemed to worked well on the lemmings". They are still clinging to it.
Elsewhere, you claim that "Cruz lied".Yet the links prove that the Lie Carson was dropping out and the Voicemails from the Cruz campaign show the deception originated with the Cruz Camp. Not CNN not anybody else. You can do the three monkeys all you want Its Proven he lied about Carson dropping out and then lied about CNN as the source of it.
And then give links that show neither.
Yet the links prove that the Lie Carson was dropping out and the Voicemails from the Cruz campaign show the deception originated with the Cruz Camp. Not CNN not anybody else. You can do the three monkeys all you want Its Proven he lied about Carson dropping out and then lied about CNN as the source of it.Carson himself put out the original message, not Cruz, not his associates, not even CNN.
Yet the links prove that the Lie Carson was dropping out and the Voicemails from the Cruz campaign show the deception originated with the Cruz Camp. Not CNN not anybody else. You can do the three monkeys all you want Its Proven he lied about Carson dropping out and then lied about CNN as the source of it.
Carson himself put out the original message, not Cruz, not his associates, not even CNN.As PROVEN neither Carson or CNN put out the message he was dropping out. Only the Cruz camp made that part up from what was said by Carson and CNN. Kinda like #neverTrump does with anything Trump says - they make things up to fit their narraitive. Really, now that facts are out Cruz people cannot rebut that Cruz lied In Iowa about Carson dropping out.
He was the one that purposely worded it vaguely. If anyone was lying it was Carson himself.
As PROVEN neither Carson or CNN put out the message he was dropping out. Only the Cruz camp made that part up from what was said by Carson and CNN. Kinda like #neverTrump does with anything Trump says - they make things up to fit their narraitive. Really, now that facts are out Cruz people cannot rebut that Cruz lied In Iowa about Carson dropping out.
And yet you haven't proved that Cruz lied at all.Yeah its proven that Cruz was the origin of the lie Carson dropped out. You can deny that all you want. Others can read the documents and listen to the voice-mails and make up their own mind. In fact they did, which is why your boy was in last place so much ....
Tedious.
Yeah its proven that Cruz was the origin of the lie Carson dropped out. You can deny that all you want. Others can read the documents and listen to the voice-mails and make up their own mind. In fact they did, which is why your boy was in last place so much ....
See, it's not enough that the King Presumptive no longer has opposition - those that do not kiss his ring must be bullied, intimidated, beaten, threatened, destroyed, and assassinated very publicly by Trump's Squadrisi.
Their lies cannot stand. They will need to be opposed as long as they continue to tell them.
Their lies cannot stand. They will need to be opposed as long as they continue to tell them.
As PROVEN neither Carson or CNN put out the message he was dropping out. Only the Cruz camp made that part up from what was said by Carson and CNN. Kinda like #neverTrump does with anything Trump says - they make things up to fit their narraitive. Really, now that facts are out Cruz people cannot rebut that Cruz lied In Iowa about Carson dropping out.I saw the thing CNN put out live, while it happened.
I saw the thing CNN put out live, while it happened.The Breitbart url lays it out with evidence in a time line. It originated with Cruz. Not CNN or Carson. That's documented.
My wife and I were eating at a Mexican restaurant.
They had the sound on and closed captioning at the same time.
I turned to my wife and said, "Wow, it looks like Carson is dropping out".
The way it was reported had that conclusion.
As one of the reporters put it, and echoed by the 2nd, Carson's behavior was "very unusual".
BTW, has anyone found just one Carson supporter who changed their vote based on this?
I still haven't heard about one, just one.
The Breitbart url lays it out with evidence in a time line. It originated with Cruz. Not CNN or Carson. That's documented.Cruz people took the snapshot of the live broadcast.
Cruz people took the snapshot of the live broadcast.
I know, because I got the tweet send out by them, but I had already seen it on CNN.
Rubio actually suggested it first, roughly one hour before the CNN report, but that didn't make the news.
I saw the thing CNN put out live, while it happened.
My wife and I were eating at a Mexican restaurant.
They had the sound on and closed captioning at the same time.
I turned to my wife and said, "Wow, it looks like Carson is dropping out".
The way it was reported had that conclusion.
As one of the reporters put it, and echoed by the 2nd, Carson's behavior was "very unusual".
BTW, has anyone found just one Carson supporter who changed their vote based on this?
I still haven't heard about one, just one.
Irrelevant. The truth is whatever Trump's Squadrisi say it is. They will provide inconclusive links and make definitive statements to bolster their claims.
Shut up, sit down and admit you are a liar for daring to speak against what Trump's mob has decreed took place by the evil and scheming Cruz.
Like Mech said earlier...we are the enemy.
Cruz people took the snapshot of the live broadcast.
I know, because I got the tweet send out by them, but I had already seen it on CNN.
Rubio actually suggested it first, roughly one hour before the CNN report, but that didn't make the news.
I wish I could figure out how to post pictures with Microsoft Edge (buttons don't work), because this whole argument is desperately deserving of a beaten-horse image.
Cruz isn't without guilt on this, else he wouldn't have apologized. But he also didn't make it up out of thin air -- seems to have been an aggressive campaign official who ran with something he shouldn't have, and Cruz did do the right thing and apologized for it publicly, multiple times. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I really don't see why it is deemed so significant as to still be an issue nearly four months later.
Who are you going to believe - your lying eyes or the anti-Cruzers?
I wish I could figure out how to post pictures with Microsoft Edge (buttons don't work), because this whole argument is desperately deserving of a beaten-horse image.
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.”
Asked about it during the CNN debate on Saturday night, here’s what Cruz said:
"Let me tell you the facts of what occurred for those who are interested in knowing. On Monday night, about 6:30 p.m., CNN reported that Ben was not going from Iowa to New Hampshire or South Carolina. Rather, he was, quote, "Taking a break from campaigning." They reported that on television, CNN's political anchors, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer, said it was highly unusual and highly significant. My political team saw CNN's report breaking news and they forwarded that news to our volunteers, it was being covered on live television…. I regret that subsequently, CNN reported on that -- they didn't correct that story until 9:15 that night. So from 6:30 p.m. to 9:15, that's what CNN was reporting. Subsequent to that initial report, Ben's campaign put out a statement saying that he was not suspending his campaign. I wish that our campaign staff had forwarded that statement. They were unaware of it, I wish that they had, that's why I apologized."
Carson then responded that CNN had issued a correction tweet a few minutes later.
The original thing that got all of this started was a tweet from the CNN social media "reporter"...the two on air reporters...IIRC Jake Tapper and that chick Cupp picked it up and amplified it by speculating that it meant Carson was dropping out...then and ONLY then did the Cruz social media person retweet what was being said by CNN.
In actuality Cruz did himself a disservice by apologizing and not pushing back against the specious claim.
I don't have any idea why Trump supporters keep bringing it up.
I see not a one of read the Breitbart research with Time stamps if you did you would see where the story originated FIRST.
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/12644860_10100330278308494_9001403889060954772_n.jpg)
Full Time line here with hard evidence:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/cruz-carson-email-trump-iowa-cnn/
And you have continually failed to show where Cruz isn't a Constitutional Conservative.
Makes you wonder who the real lemming is.
S.E.Cupp/Glenn Beck - have been vociferously against Trump and for Cruz from the beginning. I don't doubt that she may have been trying to help Cruz.
And it doesn't matter that CNN strongly suggested Carson was dropping out - but it was speculation and not fact. The fact is there was a terrible storm that night and many of the candidates were leaving early to get out of there before they got stranded by the storm. That's all Carson did!
Before Cruz's people said that - they should have confirmed it with the Carson campaign people - that would have been the ethical thing to do. THAT'S why Ted apologized - because there was wrong-doing on his campaign's part.
Whether it made much of a difference in the vote....doesn't matter, we'll never know. I think it may have - Trump was supposed to be ahead and Cruz was desperate to get Iowa - or his campaign would have been hurt bad and Trump's would have been helped.
In the end, it didn't matter - but there is no doubt that the Cruz campaign pulled a dirty trick.
I have. You refuse.
I'm under the impression only de-programming will be of any assistance.
It was Iowa, it's over, Cruz has dropped out now.
I really have no reason to lie about it or spin it now.
To what end?
I saw what I saw "live", followed by a tweet, which said the same thing I saw, with a snapshot of the same thing.
Doesn't get much more straightforward than that.
I guess it still haunts them for some reason.
This is where the whole "Lyin' Ted" thing started, I suppose.
Maybe it is because if you show the timeline and the story exactly the way CNN reported it, it blows up the whole beginnings of "Lyin' Ted" movement.
Now, we can't possibly let that happen, now can we?
Because it's the ONLY thing they have to back up their meme of Lyin Ted Cruz.
That's it...that's ALL they keep coming back to every.single.time.
Of course you don't have any reason to lie about it, and I remember it pretty much the same as you.
I have. You refuse. I'm under the impression only de-programming will be of any assistance.
How very Mao of you.
Because it's the ONLY thing they have to back up their meme of Lyin Ted Cruz.
That's it...that's ALL they keep coming back to every.single.time.
Mexican restaurant in Southeast Texas. As they sit down to take their helping of complimentary chips and salsa, they have taking their first bit into the culinary experience that leads to...
Good grief the Trumpeteers refuse to let go of this lie! Time to move on.
Those that have bolstered Trump will bear that responsibility going forward!
I proudly bear that responsibility...along with the credit and kudos for my prescience. :beer:
And what about in November...if you're wrong and you ended up backing the wrong guy...will you own up to that...or pass the blame?
Well, after all - we are "the enemy" of the people, according to them.
Why shouldn't we expect Mao treatment at the hands of such a mob?
Of course, I'll own up to it.
Ask around. :laugh:
(http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ted-cruz-quote.jpg)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/politics/at-new-york-reception-ted-cruz-is-said-to-strike-different-tone-toward-gays.html
http://austinist.com/2012/07/06/ted_cruzs_big_gay_donor.php
Nope.
Hillary's the enemy.
You keep repeating that mob, traitor, line 'em up and shoot 'em rhetoric about Trumpers - I've asked for links to such terrible talk. Would like to see that myself!
Links?
I don't even understand why they care about that meme at all. Sure, there are a lot of former Cruz supporters and others who won't vote for Trump no matter what. They are a lost cause as far as the Trump campaign is concerned. But there are also a lot of "maybe Trump" types out there who really are persuadable. But Trump/supporters who just can't let go of the "Lyin' Ted" meme are just further alienating those people. It's senseless.
(http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ted-cruz-quote.jpg)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/politics/at-new-york-reception-ted-cruz-is-said-to-strike-different-tone-toward-gays.html
http://austinist.com/2012/07/06/ted_cruzs_big_gay_donor.php
Thats the picture. I cannot confirm where it was said. Are you denying Cruz is two faced on this issue telling Christians one thing and his Gay mega donors the opposite?
Quote from: alicewonders on Today at 03:31:08 PM
Nope.
Hillary's the enemy.
You keep repeating that mob, traitor, line 'em up and shoot 'em rhetoric about Trumpers - I've asked for links to such terrible talk. Would like to see that myself!
Links?
I was quoting directly from Mechanios' post earlier in this thread. He referred to those that don't support Trump as supporters of the "real enemy" Hillary.
So now in his thinking...WE are the enemy because we don't bow at the alter of Orange Wonderful.
ONC said to me about a page ago in this thread that the only hope for me was "re-education".
it doesn't get more Stalinist/Maoist than that.
You don't like the talk...tell your fellow Trumpers to knock it off.
Quote from: INVAR on Today at 03:06:24 PM
Well, after all - we are "the enemy" of the people, according to them.
Why shouldn't we expect Mao treatment at the hands of such a mob?
Did you even attempt to verify the validity of it before posting it?
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/apr/08/facebook-posts/meme-facebook-says-ted-cruz-declared-no-place-gays/
Good luck trying to explain that to them.
We are the "enemy"; "traitors" - deserving of punishment for treason according to their most vocal acolytes out in the forum world and on social media.
The concept of winning over "maybe Trump" doesn't compute in their minds because as they have told us - either everyone is for Trump or we are aiding and abetting treason for the enemy and will be 'dealt with later'.
Its a valid point because several people who call themselves GOP have come out for Hillary already.
Posted by: txradioguy
« on: Today at 03:34:08 PM »
I wasn't replying to you - I was replying to INVAR!
I've asked for the third time now for links showing that Trump supporters have said that NeverTrumpers are traitors, should be lined up and shot, blah, blah, blah. Three times now.
And yet I answered your question and you refuse to accept that I provided what you asked for.
Funny how that works.
No he didn't. It's a flat out lie that he will do his very best to hold onto the thinnest of straws to claim is the truth.
that's Exhibit A as to why you still have "pissed-off Cruz supporters"...the Trump supporters don't know how to win graciously. It's too much for them to win with dignity and move on and maybe extend an olive branch to people who supported Cruz to possibly get us to pull the lever for him in November.
Thanks for admitting what you people are insisting those of us who refuse to vote for Trump are in your estimation.You have very selective filters for what you let get thru. NOBODY called you the enemy NOBODY called you a traitor, NOBODY wants to line you up against a wall.
The Mao and Lil' Benito references to you people are so very appropriate and accurate to describe the zealotry and mob fanaticism you display.
I've asked for the third time now for links showing that Trump supporters have said that NeverTrumpers are traitors, should be lined up and shot, blah, blah, blah. Three times now.
You're not the one that keeps saying that Trump wants people lined up and shot - are you? Have you said that? IF you have - I will ask you for links please? No one on this site has said that - that I am aware of. That's why I would like to see it for myself.
It's not too much to ask, is it?
I was quoting directly from Mechanios' post earlier in this thread. He referred to those that don't support Trump as supporters of the "real enemy" Hillary.
So now in his thinking...WE are the enemy because we don't bow at the alter of Orange Wonderful.
ONC said to me about a page ago in this thread that the only hope for me was "re-education".
it doesn't get more Stalinist/Maoist than that.
You don't like the talk...tell your fellow Trumpers to knock it off.
You misquoted me to slide your argument around.
You asked for proof that things like that were being said. I provided two instances on this very thread. One from Mech and one from ONC. They are right there for you to read with your own eyes.
But you want to move the goalposts in order to not be wrong.
Thats the picture. I cannot confirm where it was said. Are you denying Cruz is two faced on this issue telling Christians one thing and his Gay mega donors the opposite?
Are you for effin' real?#neverTrump is Losing, Trump is winning and they are getting more upset and angry everyday. This will escalate and contine I suspect until Trump is named the Nominee....
Typical Cruz and supporter. Instigate and whine. Instigate and whine.
Par for the course. Everything Cruz says is metaphor or symbol. Whatever Trump says is Torah tight.
No I did [not] try to verify it because its not the issue.
It is very damaging to a core platform of #neverTrump. If the false perception of Cruz's image as a Bible Thumper and as a Constitutional Conservative is questioned you lose many of the Cruz supporters for #neverTrump.
#neverTrump is Losing, Trump is winning and they are getting more upset and angry everyday. This will escalate and contine I suspect until Trump is named the Nominee....
Wake up. People who don't like Trump (whether because they preferred Cruz or for some other reason) don't need anything from Trump or his supporters. They don't care whether or not you like them or their candidate because their guy isn't going to be running. But Trump, and his supporters, certainly want something from those who are not yet supporting Trump. Specifically, you want (or should want if you're rational) their votes and support. It is up to the guy who won to rally support to him, not the other way around. The sooner you guys realize that those who "lost" have no obligation to support your guy, the sooner you might start thinking of ways to convince at least some of them to support Trump.
As it is, the tone of the debate from a lot of Trump supporters is alienating people, and confirming some of their worries about Trump as a candidate.
Are you for effin' real?
Typical Cruz and supporter. Instigate and whine. Instigate and whine.
Par for the course. Everything Cruz says is metaphor or symbol. Whatever Trump says is Torah tight.
I'm under the impression only de-programming will be of any assistance.
You have very selective filters for what you let get thru. NOBODY called you the enemy NOBODY called you a traitor, NOBODY wants to line you up against a wall.
Pay attention: The issue is Cruz lying. The Sub issue is Did Cruz say one thing to Christian supporters and something else to his Gay mega donors that shows he lied to the first Group? Attacking me will not change the issue.
NOBODY called you the enemy
Wake up. People who don't like Trump (whether because they preferred Cruz or for some other reason) don't need anything from Trump or his supporters. They don't care whether or not you like them or their candidate because their guy isn't going to be running. But Trump, and his supporters, certainly want something from those who are not yet supporting Trump. Specifically, you want (or should want if you're rational) their votes and support. It is up to the guy who won to rally support to him, not the other way around. The sooner you guys realize that those who "lost" have no obligation to support your guy, the sooner you might start thinking of ways to convince at least some of them to support Trump.
As it is, the tone of the debate from a lot of Trump supporters is alienating people, and confirming some of their worries about Trump as a candidate.
Best explanation of what the current situation is I've read yet.
If you post a meme with that kind of text on it, it is "the issue" whether that was your intention or not.I understand your point. And i agree with it. One of the things tho that is giving #neverTrump strength to continue is because the Cruz supporters they are courting to stay home in November are holding out hope that a Christian Constitutional Conservative (Cruz's crafted image) can still win somehow. On other Threads there is excitement over the possibility the Cruz delegates can refuse to vote for Trump, or change the rules, or free up all bound delegates, etc. Then there are threads pushing the idea enough 3rd party candidates can run to dilute the electoral vote enough to force the vote to congress - who will put Cruz in that way. As long as that hope is out there between 15 percent and 7 percent of the Conservative base can be manipulated into actively opposing Trump in November.
Of course, since Cruz isn't going to be the nominee, whether or not he was a true blue "bible-thumper" or not isn't of much relevance any more. But what is damaging to the Trump platform is the seeming inability of him and so many of his supporters to just let fecal matter go.
Wake up. People who don't like Trump (whether because they preferred Cruz or for some other reason) don't need anything from Trump or his supporters. They don't care whether or not you like them or their candidate because their guy isn't going to be running. But Trump, and his supporters, certainly want something from those who are not yet supporting Trump. Specifically, you want (or should want if you're rational) their votes and support. It is up to the guy who won to rally support to him, not the other way around. The sooner you guys realize that those who "lost" have no obligation to support your guy, the sooner you might start thinking of ways to convince at least some of them to support Trump.
As it is, the tone of the debate from a lot of Trump supporters is alienating people, and confirming some of their worries about Trump as a candidate.
Thanks -- I'm just kind of watching the tactics of some Trump supporters in awe. Their goal right now should be to win. That means heal wounds, persuade those who can be persuaded, and politely dismiss those who can't. Make it look like a Trump Presidency won't be a continuation of a war of insults and personal attacks. And if that means letting some things slide off your back without retort...hey, you've got the chance you wanted to have your guy become President. Refighting a primary battle you already won, and that tore the party apart, makes zero sense. The only people it helps are the NeverTrump crowd who don't want those wounds to heal.You made a good point, I'm going to stop and just let them post all the hit pieces and lies on trump they want. You are right, picking at the wound does not help healing it.
I'm not even sure which group I'm in. I just know a self-inflicted trainwreck when I see one.
I understand your point. And i agree with it. One of the things tho that is giving #neverTrump strength to continue is because the Cruz supporters they are courting to stay home in November are holding out hope that a Christian Constitutional Conservative (Cruz's crafted image) can still win somehow. On other Threads there is excitement over the possibility the Cruz delegates can refuse to vote for Trump, or change the rules, or free up all bound delegates, etc. Then there are threads pushing the idea enough 3rd party candidates can run to dilute the electoral vote enough to force the vote to congress - who will put Cruz in that way. As long as that hope is out there between 15 percent and 7 percent of the Conservative base can be manipulated into actively opposing Trump in November.
This is very bad for America as it will only result in the Democrat winning.
Thanks -- I'm just kind of watching the tactics of some Trump supporters in awe. Their goal right now should be to win. That means heal wounds, persuade those who can be persuaded, and politely dismiss those who can't. Make it look like a Trump Presidency won't be a continuation of a war of insults and personal attacks. And if that means letting some things slide off your back without retort...hey, you've got the chance you wanted to have your guy become President. Refighting a primary battle you already won, and that tore the party apart, makes zero sense. The only people it helps are the NeverTrump crowd who don't want those wounds to heal.Touché !!!
I'm not even sure which group I'm in. I just know a self-inflicted trainwreck when I see one.
They're going to lose -- Trump is going to win the nomination. You know that, right? So let those folks have their fun -- it won't end up mattering. The only thing that will give them the long-term strength to continue is if you guys keep taking the bait, and keep on reliving that primary.I'm agreeing with you.
One of the things tho that is giving #neverTrump strength to continue is because the Cruz supporters they are courting to stay home in November are holding out hope that a Christian Constitutional Conservative (Cruz's crafted image) can still win somehow.
As long as that hope is out there between 15 percent and 7 percent of the Conservative base can be manipulated into actively opposing Trump in November.
This is very bad for America as it will only result in the Democrat winning.
You made a good point, I'm going to stop and just let them post all the hit pieces and lies on trump they want. You are right, picking at the wound does not help healing it.
As PROVEN neither Carson or CNN put out the message he was dropping out.No. Carson said he was pulling out of New Hampshire. He said it. Stop denying it.
It was bound to rankle some feathers.
More like stir some shite....
The thread title is sort of inarguable. Sure, the people who supported Trump all along with bear that responsibility going forward. How can that even be debated?
That is exactly the way it happened.
And, yes @Maj. Bill Martin, it is beating a dead horse.
I don't have any idea why Trump supporters keep bringing it up.
Frankly, I too, should let it go and quit trying to set it all straight.
It doesn't matter today, the race has been run.
I guess I'm still tired of being told that I didn't see what I saw.
If conservative = greeting the invaders at the border with soccer balls, gift baskets and nubby blankets, yeah, I guess Cruz is a conservative.
No he didn't. It's a flat out lie that he will do his very best to hold onto the thinnest of straws to claim is the truth.
that's Exhibit A as to why you still have "pissed-off Cruz supporters"...the Trump supporters don't know how to win graciously. It's too much for them to win with dignity and move on and maybe extend an olive branch to people who supported Cruz to possibly get us to pull the lever for him in November.
They are having too much fun with the schoolyard childish BS and showing that the Left doesn't have the market cornered when it comes to low information voters.
I'm going to disagree with you as to why we still have pissed off Cruz supporters - we are angry because:
1. We had an actual, genuine Constitutional conservative running competitively for the first time in a long time,
2. Trump and his media minions ran a very dirty campaign ("Lyin' Ted") and knocked Cruz out of the running,
3. Trump and his supporters continue the abuse and lies, and expect us to come over to them,
4. And, as you say above they are monumentally poor winners.
Just speaking for myself.
Indeed it is. Being charitable is decidedly a conservative (and Christian) virtue.
[redacted]Thanks for a reasoned response.
That will happen regardless, if Trump is the nominee.
We don't see a difference.
Speaking for myself only, I feel like the record needs to be set straight because I see Cruz as an asset. I hope he's around in the future because articulate voices in service of the constitution are becoming an anachronism.
It'd be a shame if these lying memes were to follow him into the future.
Thanks for a reasoned response.
Here is my reasoning:
In Management there are a few methods to predict future behavior. The Strongest is of course Past Behavior. Another strong one is reason for motivation to produce.
The fact is Trump got seeded with one million dollars and turned it into arguably worth 10 Billion with thousands of people working for him and a very low business failure rate. If he had a reputation as a slime ball in that we would be hearing about it from thousands of people, business partners, employees, sparring partners, etc. What does stand out is he has a reputation as an egotistical turn-around manager - taking hundreds if not thousands of poorly run or failing businesses and making them work. So other then the few exceptions and they are very few for his history he has a reputation in business as a straight shooter, diplomatic and respected. This leads me to why I think his motivation is to "fix" America.
Hes wealthy, very wealthy, It can be argued how much but he has no need of money or power. he is 70 and can live in the lap of luxury for the rest of his life no matter what happens to America. However he was a family he loves and a legacy to leave behind. It also appears he loves America. The usual motivations to for people to get into office is money and power. Its a hard job, very damaging to the family and self. Why would a Super Rich Person put themselves thru what is required to run today for the Highest office of the land? It is my educated guess that he really does want to leave behind a legacy as the Greatest Turn-around manager in the world as well as a safer and better country for his prodigy.
I cannot see the usual motivations that drive the normal politicians involved here. So yes I think its his ego driving this but to satisfy it he has to deliver a America he can brag about.
And following the law means nothing.What law did he violate?
Speaking for myself only, I feel like the record needs to be set straight because I see Cruz as an asset. I hope he's around in the future because articulate voices in service of the constitution are becoming an anachronism.
It'd be a shame if these lying memes were to follow him into the future.
Yes! Isn't it nice that we can finally reason together - even if we know it is not going to change our minds?
You make an argument that explains in perfect detail why the world and a secular society would view Trump's wealth, business acumen and industry achievements as worthy proof he is the best choice to Administer the country.
For a biblical Christian Conservative, those attributes are of the world and the stature of measurement is of the world. They do not speak to the moral character of the candidate. Nancy Pelosi is wealthy beyond words. She has a business empire she and her husband run. Her character is one that is completely unfit to hold any public office, and on that score you and I would agree. Christian Conservatives are applying the biblical principles and attributes God's Word says are necessary for someone seeking office. And we have assessed and judged Trump's own fruits and words in this campaign - as someone unfit for the office he seeks.
Ego is a dangerous thing for someone to flaunt while seeking the highest power in the land my friend.
I understand the attraction for so many - as we have not had someone telling the Establishment, the Left and the Marxist Democrat Party to "shove it" for decades. Many want payback, revenge or someone who looks like they will fight for what has been diminished and stolen from us by those entrusted to obey their oaths to the Constitution.
A measurable record of someone who is a law unto himself, and is unable to maintain his marriage vows while bragging about his infidelity and indiscretions is not someone Biblical Christian Conservatives will trust to keep the vows he swears and affirms to uphold and defend the Constitution.
And much of his behavior and statements have added to the affirmation that we cannot support such a man for the position he seeks, ESPECIALLY when the Executive has been fundamentally transformed into a quasi-dictatorship by the current occupant with the full approval and enabling of the party Trump is running under.
One of the things tho that is giving #neverTrump strength to continue is because the Cruz supporters they are courting to stay home in November are holding out hope that a Christian Constitutional Conservative (Cruz's crafted image) can still win somehow.
As long as that hope is out there between 15 percent and 7 percent of the Conservative base can be manipulated into actively opposing Trump in November.
This is very bad for America as it will only result in the Democrat winning.
And following the law means nothing.
Let me be clear, and I think I speak for my fellows:Your arguments are valid. I'm in the #ProbablyNeverTrump category. I will give him a few months to absolutely prove otherwise, but I think he is a liberal.
No one is expecting a hail mary pass, though it would be nice.
I know the deal is done.
There isn't a single chance I will vote for Trump.
I vote for Conservatives, and only to advance the Conservative cause.
Trump is not a conservative, even in the least sense of the word.
His record betrays his platform, and his promises mean nothing due to his lack of character.
Thus there is no means of convincing me otherwise.
I will vote. Probably Constitution Party, and I will be active till the very end.
I will actively support TEA Party candidates down ticket, and I will absolutely, actively oppose Trump.
Not being manipulated at all. And there will be many more than 15% in opposition.
A liberal is winning either way.
I fight liberalism.
the next fail-safe is the congress and where your mere Republican vote coincides with my TEA Party vote is the only coalition that might yet be possible.
I disagree Trump will be the same or worse than Hillary.
Here is my reasoning:
Well a decent man was lied and smeared by Trump and his sycophants, during the campaign. The lies and slander of Cruz by Trump followers has continued.
Not doing much to persuade me to vote for Trump.
Hes wealthy, very wealthy, It can be argued how much but he has no need of money or power.Neither does Soros. Soros is worth $25 Billion so he must be twice as altruistic as Trump.
Your arguments are valid. I'm in the #ProbablyNeverTrump category. I will give him a few months to absolutely prove otherwise, but I think he is a liberal.
What decent man did Trump and his followers smear?Nobody you would know.
He may not be a devote Christian to understand why promoting a return to a moral nation based on Christian principles would greatly help him achieve his likely goal of a Turn-Around. He would not be the first leader in history to save money and resources by promoting it.
God has habit of choosing the Most unlikely to do his work. We know that with Hillary we will be in wars here and abroad. We also know how much religious freedom matters to her - she supports it for Muslims.
Neither does Soros. Soros is worth $25 Billion so he must be twice as altruistic as Trump.Fair example bur it helps prove my point. Trump's reputation is that of a builder. Soros is that of a Destroyer. Its the motivation of why he is putting himself thru this and why hes risking his life.
That would be a welcome effort, but we have not heard that coming from him. Trump's own lack of moral character and the various video examples of his vulgarity means that if Trump actually went so far as to encourage the American People to embrace and return to the morality and teachings of their churches and synagogues - he runs the risk of being laughed off the stage and ridiculed as a hypocrite while leaving many biblical Christians to wonder if he is serious or pandering for votes.What we have heard from him and seen some action that way is three areas he has made promises on that if done would work towards your goals regardless of Trump himself.
And rightfully so.
To the exclusion of Christians, yes we know.
That said, God tends to use unlikely poor and humble servants to do His work. He tends to use rich, arrogant and unrepentant men as examples of what befalls such men due their arrogance and the catastrophes that are visited upon the nations that make such men their rulers.
Ancient Israel is a fitting example, and God allowed them to be utterly destroyed, taken as slaves and rendered lost and obsolete.
. Several times its come up he studies history. He knows American history more then many.
Donald Trump spoke of his sister, a liberal activist judge who he says would make a “phenomenal" Supreme Court justice, and defended her against criticism she has received "for signing a certain bill"—his words—from the bench. He then said his sister wasn't the only judge who had "signed that bill"; more than one judge had "signed that bill."
Clinton invoked Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. and asked Wisconsin voters what kind of justice a President Trump would nominate.
“Well, I’d probably appoint people that would look very seriously at her email disaster because it’s a criminal activity, and I would appoint people that would look very seriously at that to start off with,” Trump said in a phone interview with ABC's “Good Morning America.” “What she’s getting away with is absolutely murder. You talk about a case — now that’s a real case.”
I'd love for somebody to ask Trump publicy what years Lincoln served as president.. There is ZERO evidence that Trump has studied any history or civics at all. In fact, Trump thinks judges sign bills:Ineffective spam.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-on-the-separation-of-powers-judges-sign-bills/article/2001315
And, he thinks the Supreme Court should go after Hillary's emails:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-supreme-court-clinton-email-221377#ixzz49WePHm5y
Trump is an embarrassment, and he knows it.
Nobody you would know.
Nobody you would know.
What we have heard from him and seen some action that way is three areas he has made promises on that if done would work towards your goals regardless of Trump himself.
Nonetheless we know that there is no chance of any of them with Hillary.
First of all, Trump himself said everything he says in this campaign is a *suggestion* - so the word *promise* has no meaning for me when Trump says it.
First the Term "suggestion" according to a dictionary is a noun meaning plan or proposal. Its has never meant not serious, not the plan, not the goal. Swap the term Plan for it and you can see its not a walk back. Just not a term lawyers use with focus groups and consultants to make it more "easy" for the people. Its a proper term for a candidate's proposal when running just not the common form of it.
Secondly - I don't wait for someone to get into high office to do those things required to work towards my goals. Trump is neither my protector or enabler of the rights I have by divine gift.
Until the civil war starts there is little we can do nationally on our own at this time.
Third, I don't see Trump having any ability to stop activist courts, municipalities, HOAs or colleges that are at war with Christianity. Nor do I expect him to reverse the anti-Christian PC movement that has done everything from running Christians out of business, infringing upon their 1st Amendment Right of free exercise, fining them or even tossing them into prison.
5 Supreme Court Justices can completely change the direction of the Country.. With Trump he is advised by conservative groups to pick them. That check is not available with Hillary.
If a candidate sees nothing wrong with a grown man using a girls bathroom because he self-identifies as a woman, I don't expect him to have moral clarity enough to know what protections he is supposed to uphold for Christians.
What was he supposed to say as the STILL owner of the Hotel chain operating in gay friendly cities when he was asked. Why yes please sue me for Millions while I am running...
Fourth - given his statements post-SCOTUS list from last week - I do not expect he will follow through with appointing and fighting for actual Scalia-type Originalists for the Court in the Senate.
What he said post list was was not a walk-back it was common sense. The Senate could reject all 11 he listed then he would have to put up others of the same nature. Thats all that was said. Would you rather he lie to you and promise they will get approved by the Senate?
Hillary has no power to destroy Conservatism or redefine it because we recognize her as anathema to everything we believe in.
Hillary if elected will control between 3 and 5 supreme court nominations as well as the war powers. Its been put forth her agenda is to start wars in the Mideast to justify bringing in enough Muslim refugees to destroy America from within.
So yes she will have that power to destroy America.
Trump does have that power and has already demonstrated the ability to redefine Conservatism to comport with and align with his Northeastern Liberal philosophies.
Trump will have BOTH Democrats and Republicans looking for an excuse to impeach him for their own self-interests. He will be on a tighter leash then a democrat would.
I'm done rolling the roulette wheel in vain hopes a man with an actual liberal record will do the right thing. I've been shown how futile that is by the very charlatans I voted into office in the past.
Maybe you are right, But what if this time you are wrong?
What law did he violate?
@jmyrlefuller , would you ping me if you get an answer to that question? I've yet to see @olde north church answer a straightforward, simple question like that. Thanks,
Fair example bur it helps prove my point. Trump's reputation is that of a builder. Soros is that of a Destroyer. Its the motivation of why he is putting himself thru this and why hes risking his life.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Donald-Trumps-general-reputation-amongst-NYC-real-estate-professionalsYet your Source ignores all those projects trump has done. Fail #neverTrump is pathetic
What is Donald Trump's general reputation amongst NYC real estate professionals?
Bruce Feldman, Real Estate Consultant in NY.
27.2k Views • Most Viewed Writer in Real Estate with 1200+ answers
Most NYC real estate professionals know that Donald Trump is not really in the real estate business, so he doesn't have a "reputation" as such.
Mr. Trump is a master-marketer of the brand name "Trump," which has been positioned as a consumer brand to symbolize luxury and opulence, whether that brand is on a condominium, a casino, a resort, or on consumer products from neckties to ice cream. He licenses his name to others as his principal occupation.
Serious NYC real estate professionals don't consider Mr. Trump among their peers.
Fail #neverTrump is pathetic
First the Term "suggestion" according to a dictionary is a noun meaning plan or proposal.
Until the civil war starts there is little we can do nationally on our own at this time.
5 Supreme Court Justices can completely change the direction of the Country.
What was he supposed to say as the STILL owner of the Hotel chain operating in gay friendly cities when he was asked. Why yes please sue me for Millions while I am running…
What he said post list was was not a walk-back it was common sense. The Senate could reject all 11 he listed then he would have to put up others of the same nature. Thats all that was said. Would you rather he lie to you and promise they will get approved by the Senate?
Hillary if elected will control between 3 and 5 supreme court nominations as well as the war powers. Its been put forth her agenda is to start wars in the Mideast to justify bringing in enough Muslim refugees to destroy America from within.
So yes she will have that power to destroy America.
Trump will have BOTH Democrats and Republicans looking for an excuse to impeach him for their own self-interests. He will be on a tighter leash then a democrat would.
Maybe you are right, But what if this time you are wrong?
Trump will have BOTH Democrats and Republicans looking for an excuse to impeach him for their own self-interests. He will be on a tighter leash then a democrat would.
Really? You're gonna go there?
You went there. Honestly - you make Josh Earnest look like an amateur in the spin department.
Yeah going there:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proposal
something (such as a plan or suggestion) that is presented to a person or group of people to consider: the act of presenting a plan, suggestion, etc., to a person or group of people.
Suggestion, Plan and Proposal mean the same thing. Its called the English language.
I think locally. I don't think in terms of the whole country any more, and I'm not waiting for events or decrees from potentates, courts and their oligarchies regarding what remains of my liberties. They have no say in that matter whatsoever. All they have are guns and hired pawns to act on their behalf. We used to call where we now find ourselves as tyranny. Now we pretend we are free.
Perhaps others are not so lucky and selfish. Yes it is Tyranny and I see no way to avoid a civil war. It would be better tho if we do not have a few million Muslims inside the US when it happens.
Where in the Constitution are they given that kind of authority and power? Why do you subscribe to that kind of abuse of power as having any "legitimacy"? You're playing the game of tyranny, thinking you can get your guy into office to put the *right* guys on the court to 'completely change the direction of the country'.
That was never the intent or role SCOTUS was to have. A Conservative would know that and not bend the knee enabling that to continue.
Of Peaceful options its the only one we really have left. Voting the bastards out has not worked.
So now he's just a hotel chain mogul worried about a lawsuit that will affect his businesses and not a candidate running for POTUS? You just proved my whole point. You've just illustrated that Trump will not stand on principle when threat and risk of lawsuits are involved, even if it is the right thing to do. He will defer to the easier way out and lecture us that perverts and privacy are mutually exclusive and that the pervert has the right to invade privacy at their own discretion. Sorry - you do not convince your point.
he can do no good if hes derailed by the GayStapo. A smart strategist knows you pick your battles. This is not a battle to be fought during the election. There is No return for the risk.
Please, don't insult our intelligence. You're belittling yourself. Trump said nothing like that at all. In fact just a few hours after that list was released Trump said that he may instead nominate someone else who is not on that list. That was not the result of media-pushback or Trump clarifying that he may run into confirmation problems in the Senate. Trump offered that statement just a few hours after his team released it.
Actually he did, he alluded to they would be of the same types as he has proposed. It only Bias that creates the fiction its a walk back.
Yawn. Already been going on for 8 years with the full approval, funding and enabling of the Republican Party.
Hildabeast doesn't scare me. I know what she is.
I also know where we have arrived as a country - and why Trump has a fanatical mob following whom love his vulgarity and insulting attacks upon everything any everyone that questions him or poses a political risk to Trump.
Its not Hillary you should be worried about, its who controls her. Mullahs and Soros.
Trump scares me more. I think his rabid supporters have actually warranted my fears even moreso than Trump himself has.
I want no part of it. I won't support or enable him or his campaign.
No. I don't believe that for a moment. Once Trump shows them the amazing 'deals' he is going to make with them, Trump will finally be able to be a member of their exclusive oligarchy that they tried so hard to keep him out of because he was not groomed from among them. That, and Trump did tell us that he will have no problems working with Pelosi, Reid and Schumer but would absolutely be unable to work with someone as nasty as Ted Cruz. In one fell swoop, Trump showed the Establishment he hated Conservatives as much as they do and considered himself a colleague of those who brought us to this point.
And, I'm doubtful Trump will do anything which would risk his impeachment if Trump today will not risk a lawsuit from a bunch of perverts in Homosexual cities he has businesses in.
Principles are never wrong when moored with morality and our foundations. And since I am not voting for either of them - I'm not contributing to any evils they may perpetrate.
What can DC offer Trump he does not already have better already?
Evil and wicked people will do what they are going to do in a morally degenerate and historically ignorant society. They will go their own way, and seek their desires by whatever means they demand. A single vote from me is not going to make any difference in a post-Constitutional, post-velvet coup dictatorship empowered by an oligarchy, especially it is not the votes cast that matters. Since Cook County went national, it is the votes counted from the living, the dead and the imaginary that matters.
I agree there is much vote fraud, saying that I am willing to try a peaceful solution here. I have been in combat, nobody who knows it wants to go thru it again if it can be helped.
Perhaps others are not so lucky and selfish. Yes it is Tyranny and I see no way to avoid a civil war. It would be better tho if we do not have a few million Muslims inside the US when it happens.
Of Peaceful options its the only one we really have left. Voting the bastards out has not worked.
he can do no good if hes derailed by the GayStapo. A smart strategist knows you pick your battles. This is not a battle to be fought during the election.
Actually he did, he alluded to they would be of the same types as he has proposed. It only Bias that creates the fiction its a walk back.
Its not Hillary you should be worried about, its who controls her. Mullahs and Soros.
What can DC offer Trump he does not already have better already?
I agree there is much vote fraud, saying that I am willing to try a peaceful solution here. I have been in combat, nobody who knows it wants to go thru it again if it can be helped.
What decent man did Trump and his followers smear?
And following the law means nothing.
So now he's just a hotel chain mogul worried about a lawsuit that will affect his businesses and not a candidate running for POTUS? You just proved my whole point. You've just illustrated that Trump will not stand on principle when threat and risk of lawsuits are involved, even if it is the right thing to do. He will defer to the easier way out and lecture us that perverts and privacy are mutually exclusive and that the pervert has the right to invade privacy at their own discretion. Sorry - you do not convince your point.
...
I'm not going to quote your post because it's obscene and stupid all at once. It's hard to strike that balance, but you managed.
You need to figure out why you're so angry that you feel the need to post this kind of stuff.
Queen RINO Sen Lindsey F-in' Graham just came out and said we have to support Trump. Trump gave out her cell phone number on live television, but she is behind Trump. So is King RINO Rep Peter King of NY. Are you sure these guys are a bulwark against the philosophically inconsistent populism that Trump says is completely negotiable?
I have little doubt that the RINO's are realizing that Trump is willing to keep the 'cartel' status quo and isn't the so-called outsider as he at first proclaimed himself to be. All are very good at pretending we still are a two party system.Until these people feel pressure or a threat from the right, they will continue their path to implosion.
Until these people feel pressure or a threat from the right, they will continue their path to implosion.
As long as the GOP keeps nominating people like Trump...they'll never feel any pressure at all.That's my point. The pressure needs to come from outside the GOP, to their right. The GOP as it is now is a lost cause.
That's my point. The pressure needs to come from outside the GOP, to their right. The GOP as it is now is a lost cause.
As long as the GOP keeps nominating people like Trump...they'll never feel any pressure at all.
I don't really believe it is "the GOP" that matters. It's the voters who nominate and elect these guys. There's this logic sometimes that the party "needs to be taught a lesson", or "pressured", but I think that entire paradigm is wrong because the GOP is not some monolithic entity with a hive mind. There is nobody to learn the lesson because what we are really talking about his the collective votes of all the millions of people who make up the party, and they're not going to be "taught" anything. They all have their own issues, preferences, beliefs, and hot-button issues. And those can swing pretty dramatically based upon a whole bunch of factors, including things as mundane as the personal charisma of a particular candidate.So the alternative, since it can't be done from within anymore, is to vote for a candidate and/or a party to the right of the "current" GOP. If enough voters would vote this way, the GOP wouldn't think that the DemRats are their only competition, hence drawing it to the left. Much the same way Bernie Saunders is dragging the DemRats further left, someone needs to drag the GOP back to the right, OR just forget them altogether if enough conservative voters can band together.
My point is that the idea that the party can/should be "taught a lesson" do they better people get nominated is fighting a foe that does not exist.
So the alternative, since it can't be done from within anymore, is to vote for a candidate and/or a party to the right of the "current" GOP. If enough voters would vote this way, the GOP wouldn't think that the DemRats are their only competition, hence drawing it to the left. Much the same way Bernie Saunders is dragging the DemRats further left, someone needs to drag the GOP back to the right, OR just forget them altogether if enough conservative voters can band together.
Okay, look at what happened with Bernie, because that's exactly my point. It is happening during the primary process, and is forcing Hillary to move left to appease some of his voters, to win the nomination and hold their support for the upcoming general election. That's a perfectly viable strategy that I think can work very easily.
Where I think it falls apart is when you get to "protest votes" in the general election. Either sitting home, or voting for the other guy. I don't think that message gets sent, or received. Because the reality is that each election is different -- its own entity independent of how "protest votes" were cast in the last election. And voters make their decisions and cast their votes based on what they hear that election only.
So I think the whole logic of "we can't keep nominating these people or the party won't get the message" misses the mark. Because the day after the election, nobody is going to care about who voted, and why. All they're going to care about is who won, and as 2020, what those candidates are saying then. Nobody will care about 2016.
Where your argument isn't entirely true, is if for example the Constitution Party were to get 10-20%, Libertarian Party another 15-20%, neither of the current "two" parties would get a majority of the total vote. But would in fact tell the GOP they are heading in the wrong direction. Me, I prefer the Constitution over Libertarian or GOP. Both are too socially liberal.
Look, the GOP doesn't care what you or I think. They hold us in the same contempt that the Democrats do. They are never going to 'get the message' - because they don't care about Conservatives. They are embarrassed by Conservatives. They want us as gone from their party as the Democrats do. It's why they got Jeb to say he was going to win the election without the 'base'. They do not want us.I am in total agreement. I am not trying to push the GOP, quite the opposite. I will go by way of the Constitution Party. Not that I agree with 100 % of their platform, but because it is more in line with my beliefs, morals and brand of conservative thinking than any other party. By a long shot!
So no, they are never going to get the 'message' even if a third party got 40% of the vote.
They would join with the Democrats publicly and behind the scenes (as McConnell is so expert at doing) to thwart third party 'outsiders' from threatening their gravy train.
Look, the GOP doesn't care what you or I think. They hold us in the same contempt that the Democrats do. They are never going to 'get the message' - because they don't care about Conservatives. They are embarrassed by Conservatives. They want us as gone from their party as the Democrats do. It's why they got Jeb to say he was going to win the election without the 'base'. They do not want us.
So no, they are never going to get the 'message' even if a third party got 40% of the vote.
They would join with the Democrats publicly and behind the scenes (as McConnell is so expert at doing) to thwart third party 'outsiders' from threatening their gravy train.
The only way the Washington cartel is going to get the message is if enough people vote them out and enough of them lose their seats. They could care less if it's Trump or Hillary -- both joined the country club along time ago. This isn't going to be done in one or two election cycles and it appears that it is far from becoming a reality. Voting conservative at the state and local level is much more feasible and effective. While a Convention of States is risky it's about the only option we really have left.
The only way the Washington cartel is going to get the message is if enough people vote them out and enough of them lose their seats. They could care less if it's Trump or Hillary -- both joined the country club along time ago. This isn't going to be done in one or two election cycles and it appears that it is far from becoming a reality. Voting conservative at the state and local level is much more feasible and effective. While a Convention of States is risky it's about the only option we really have left.
If we agree that the Federal Beast is corrupt, and has corrupted our institutions and installed an oligarchy and a dictatorship in the Executive …. why do we continue to put faith in the belief we can vote out corrupt tyrants or put our faith in the legitimacy of the election system???
Look, I lived in Cook County once upon a time - served as a precinct captain long ago. That institutional corruption has gone NATIONAL. You've seen your last legit national election.
Yes, a Convention of States is probably the only legal option we have left. We need to do it. @libertybele, do you know much about it? Can we start a thread for it?Well, if it ever happens and the process and efforts are not corrupted and manipulated like everything else - you better also start creating armed divisions that will be required to implement whatever the states ratify.
Born and raised in Chicago. Lifelong Republican in the town of the democrat machine and voter fraud.And a blast furnace will spew snowflakes in order to melt steel before a Republican, much less a Conservative ever takes office in that city.
Well, if it ever happens and the process and efforts are not corrupted and manipulated like everything else - you better also start creating armed divisions that will be required to implement whatever the states ratify.
Because it is a fact of history that a lawless oligarchy and tyranny is NEVER going to relinquish power without the threat and/or use of force. They will use the courts, activist judges or pens and phones to simply ignore and nullify whatever ends up making it through the ratification process if it threatens their power and flow of money.
And a blast furnace will spew snowflakes in order to melt steel before a Republican, much less a Conservative ever takes office in that city.If it doesn't implode until the weight of lawlessness and inferno first.
That may well be. But, I think we should follow through and call for a Convention of States. It's not that out of the realm of possibility. There are a number of states who have already committed, and a number more that could be motivated to do so. You in?
For one reason alone: so we will have the justification in the eyes of God and a candid world that what will be necessary was unavoidable.
If we agree that the Federal Beast is corrupt, and has corrupted our institutions and installed an oligarchy and a dictatorship in the Executive …. why do we continue to put faith in the belief we can vote out corrupt tyrants or put our faith in the legitimacy of the election system???
Look, I lived in Cook County once upon a time - served as a precinct captain long ago. That institutional corruption has gone NATIONAL. You've seen your last legit national election.
As for creating armed divisions that will be required to implement whatever the states ratify; I'm still hoping for peaceful restoration.
I understand, but history clearly teaches that an uncivil society and a lawless government unmoored from foundational and biblical principles is NEVER going to abide the rule of law. A peaceful restoration is not remotely possible by any stretch of the imagination among such a people and a government.
They currently circumvent the rule of law NOW - why would we assume they will peaceably abide the rule of law then, when the states they hold in contempt decide to pass amendments to restrain them from the tyranny that they so eagerly are attempting to impose on us all?
This is not the time for wishful thinking, hopes and dreams.
This is the time for counting the cost of what will be required.
The tree of liberty is nearly dead from drought, and either we let it die with only our hats in our hands - or we have to be prepared to water it with it's natural manure.
Yes, a Convention of States is probably the only legal option we have left. We need to do it. @libertybele, do you know much about it? Can we start a thread for it?
I would honestly like to know what makes anyone think that those who have no respect for the Constitution as it currently is would suddenly respect an amended Constitution!
Can someone explain how that would work?
I still have faith in our Republic and "We the People".
They have no choice. 2/3'rds of the states ratify the amendment it's the same as if Congress puts out an amendment for ratification by the states.
http://www.conventionofstates.com/faq
The Constitution we currently have has been amended 28 times! I doubt seriously that a few more will change a thing!
Well... ignoring amendments blatantly would be more than enough reason to impeach... or worse IMO.
Six months ago I would have been with you on that but now I can't be. We have gone over the cliff and there is no getting back!
“Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.”
John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. “
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775
Both of them were and are exactly right!
And when you thin about it...the cast majority of the 28 Amendments aren't ignored. It's just certain ones that get in the way of the Left's march towards statism.
CofS will halt that march.
How do you figure that?
The lawless are not going to follow any new laws you try and impose on them.
The corrupt are not going to suddenly abide incorruption just because the people in states they loathe ratified an amendment to a Constitution they have already circumvented and ignored.
The only way Article V works at this late state - is the threat and use of force to impose it on the very corrupt oligarchy and dictatorship that will not allow it to be imposed.
If you want to make sure you deligitimize anything an Article V CofS intends to accomplish...giving it the air of a militia movement with the threat of violence will do that.
Six months ago I would have been with you on that but now I can't be. We have gone over the cliff and there is no getting back!
I find myself trying to give you a response and sadly I can't come up with a legitimate answer as to why I still have faith other than perhaps wishful thinking. I had predicted that even though we handed Congress the majority during the past mid term elections, that there would be no change. However, I failed to focus beyond that point as I became involved in the presidential primary election...we came so close to obtaining restoration...so close. As for the Convention of States; at best we would amend the Constitution to grant more power to the States and in doing so take power away for the federal government and in essence set forth new limitations upon the Government. It may or may not work; but I don't see any other open avenues. We have a choice between a Convention of States or accept the status quo and continue to watch the destruction.
I fully understand where you are Belle and want you to know just how much I have come to respect and admire you ofver these last year or so. :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
I fully understand where you are Belle and want you to know just how much I have come to respect and admire you over these last year or so. :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
I'm stil holding out some measure of hope that the Republican party will refuse to hand over the keys to Trump in July.I think they have fallen for the Trump trap and succumbed to drinking the orange juice. Time to abandon that sinking ship.
I think they have fallen for the Trump trap and succumbed to drinking the orange juice. Time to abandon that sinking ship.
Trump has hijacked the GOP and derailed the attempt to stop the Washington cartel.
The ship may eventually completely sink after the Clinton/Trump wrecking ball smashes it's hull.
And those "Conservatives" who have thrown a childish hissy fit of total ignorance for months about Trump will bear responsibility for their actions going forward...forever.
And those "Conservatives" who have thrown a childish hissy fit of total ignorance for months about Trump . . .
And those "Conservatives" who have thrown a childish hissy fit of total ignorance for months about Trump will bear responsibility for their actions going forward...forever.
So what do you plan to do about it tough guy??? Join your rabid compatriots on Social media and promise that we are going to be rounded up and executed for treason or arrested for "lying"???
Oh look! Another drama queen!! :whistle:
And those "Conservatives" who have thrown a childish hissy fit of total ignorance for months about Trump will bear responsibility for their actions going forward...forever.
Oh look! Another drama queen!! :whistle:
The GOP did this to itself. It capitulated and surrendered their duty, their power, their principles and joined the velvet Coup that Obama and the Democrats imposed on the nation.
Same exact thing applies to the lesser evil voters. They surrendered everything of importance to advance liberalism. It's right there in the name. "lesser evil". They weren't opposed to evil. They didn't try to stop the advancement of evil. They just wanted evil on their timetable. Pretty selfish really.
They could have stood like men but willingly chose not to. They were exactly the people Franklin refered to about deserving neither freedom or liberty. But whats really funny is how they think that those words don't apply to them. They aren't responsible. It's always someone else responsible for the actions of the people they themselves gave power.
I guess the Democrats elected Mitch and Bhoner and Ryan and tried to elect Romney (who then went on to sabotage conservatism every day since his great fail. Certainly it was no fault of their voters. Of course not.
Same exact thing applies to the lesser evil voters....
I guess the Democrats elected Mitch and Bhoner and Ryan and tried to elect Romney (who then went on to sabotage conservatism every day since his great fail. Certainly it was no fault of their voters. Of course not.
I don't understand this argument...
...t were a lot of people for whom Romney and McCain were not their preferred candidate, but who voted for them in the general election as a "lesser evil" than Obama.
But given that Romney (and McCain) both lost their elections, how is anything to be blamed on those who cast those losing votes? Had they not cast those votes in the general election, the only effect would have been to increase Obama's margin of victory.
So exactly what are the negative consequences of casting a losing vote for Romney for which those voters should bear "fault"?
Oh look! Another drama queen!! :whistle:
You'd be more believable if you weren't holding pom-poms when you say stuff like that.
I don't understand this argument.
Sure, there were a lot of peoole for whom Romney and McCain were not their preferred candidate, but who voted for them in the general election as a "lesser evil" than Obama.
But given that Romney (and McCain) both lost their elections, how is anything to be blamed on those who cast those losing votes? Had they not cast those votes in the general election, the only effect would have been to increase Obama's margin of victory.
So exactly what are the negative consequences of casting a losing vote for Romney for which those voters should bear "fault"?
I found [Romney] admirable, honest, knowledgeable, open, genuine and moderately conservative. Trump doesn't possess any of those qualities; in fact I find Trump just the opposite, dishonest, deceitful, ignorant, fraudulent and a liberal.
And those "Conservatives" who have thrown a childish hissy fit of total ignorance for months about Trump will bear responsibility for their actions going forward...forever.
And those "Conservatives" who have thrown a childish hissy fit of total ignorance for months about Trump will bear responsibility for their actions going forward...forever.
Touché!
...hmm ignorance about Trump? Let's see...he doesn't have a clue about the Constitution or how government functions, he makes outlandish statements, i.e.,; Trump backed off his call for raising the Social Security retirement age to 70. He told 60 minutes that he would instead save Social Security by having "other countries pay for it." He is for building the wall but has softened that position (at least to the mayor of Laredo), he wants to ban Muslim refugees from coming into this country - unless they are rich Muslims. He's running as a non-establishment candidate, but claims he needs to be a little more establishment, etc. Now, who's the ignorant one?? :silly: :silly:
I will have absolutely no problem in accepting responsibility for not voting for Trump; I see it as my duty to my Country!
I will have absolutely no problem in accepting responsibility for not voting for Trump; I see it as my duty to my Country!
Ditto for me too. Unfortunately, there are many people in this country who are now ready to embrace fascism as long at it is their guy in charge of it.bttt
Ditto for me too. Unfortunately, there are many people in this country who are now ready to embrace fascism as long at it is their guy in charge of it.
When your kid goes out and accidently shatters the neighbor's window playing baseball, who should bear the responsibility of his action? Little Suzie 3 blocks over playing with her puppy?
No. your kid should because it was his action that broke the window right? Because actions have consequences. Because actions require an actor by the very definition of the word.
So who should bear the responsibility of KNOWINGLY electing liberal Republicans who govern indistinguishably from an open Democrat? Should it be the person that voted them into power? Of course it should. Because actions have consequense and actions require actors. The Democrat did not try electing Romney. The Democrat did not Try electing John Mc.
But given that Romney (and McCain) both lost their elections, how is anything to be blamed on those who cast those losing votes? Had they not cast those votes in the general election, the only effect would have been to increase Obama's margin of victory. So exactly what are the negative consequences of casting a losing vote for Romney for which those voters should bear "fault"?
So again, what are the specific negative consequences of a failed general election vote for McCain or Romney for which those voters should bear the "fault"?
A consequence of voting FOR liberals and "moderate" Republicans is that with each consequential election cycle - the nominees are further and further to the Left as the nation gets dragged into overt Socialism and Communism.
A consequence of voting FOR liberals and "moderate" Republicans is that with each consequential election cycle - the nominees are further and further to the Left as the nation gets dragged into overt Socialism and Communism.
......The problem is that in reality too often unexpected consequences prevail.
America has never been a pure democracy and majoritarianism has always been as much feared as monarchism. Moreover, our supposedly broad parameters of “choice” at the ballot box have actually caused a dramatic narrowing of electoral options for voters. Putting aside the media histrionics over “divided” government and the “dysfunctional” relationships between the two houses of Congress, these institutions are populated by a class of elected officials who jealously covet the power of public office.
In 2010, 85 percent of incumbents from both parties were reelected—397 members of the House ran for reelection and 339 won. The Senate’s reelection rate was 84 percent.
Ronald Rotunda, Chapman University law professor and constitutional expert, made the point a few years ago that “turnover in the House of Lords has been greater than the turnover in the House of Representatives. There was even more turnover in the membership of the Soviet Politburo...”
An interesting point from an article that someone here referenced the other day:
https://ricochet.com/archives/liberty-amendments-congressional-term-limits/
What is the evidence that a vote for McCain or Romney in the general election (not in the primaries) moved the GOP to the left? They lost, and any number of conclusions could (and have been) drawn from those failures.
The evidence is that each election, the electorate has in fact voted for more leftist republicans. The evidence is that the GOP would by necessity, have to OFFER more leftist Republicans for them to elect.
The evidence is that we went from Reagan saying 'We will not turn the party over" to in fact catering to every major push by the Obama admin to the tune of a 17 Trillion dollar debt.
This is arguing a completely different point -- and even that wrongly, I think. What you're arguing about there is the nomination process -- that nominees who are progressively further to the left induce subsequent nominees to be further to the left as well. Though it is not relevant to the issue of general election votes, I don't believe that is true anyway when the nominees in question lose the election. Even assuming there was a GOP hive mind that put forth candidates, it could just as easily conclude that the most rational way to win is to try doing something different from nominating a leftist who loses. namely, nominate a conservative.
But your initial statement that I've been repeatedly questioning goes to the votes cast in the general election anyway, and your evidence doesn't address that at all. How did voting for Romney in the general election after he already has been nominated make things worse than they would otherwise have been? I've yet to see anything addressing that.
The GOP doesn't "offer" more leftist Republicans anyway. Candidates choose to run on their own, and get the votes they from voters. If this primary season proved anything, it is that the voters, not the establishment, actually choose the nominee.
Again, what in the name of Nyarlothotep does that have to do with "lesser evil" votes cast for Romney in the general election?? What you're describing could be blamed on support of Republican members of Congress, but how is that the responsibility of the people who voted for a Presidential candidate in the general election who lost?
I have a VERY hard time believing that you see none of this as a direct consequence of an electorate being OK with it.
This is a different point than the one you made to which I am responding. I certainly blame the electorate for where we are today -- nobody else to blame. Blame those who voted for those members of Congress, either in the primary or the general election. Blame those who voted for Romeny or McCain in the primary if you want. Obviously blame those on the left who elected Democrats as well.
What I don't see -- at all -- is a shred of support for your claim that those who cast a vote for Romney or McCain in the general election are at fault for where we are today. You have offered nothing explaining how voting for a failed candidate in the general election mattered one bit.
I know you and I have a fundamental disagreement as to the issue of "teaching them a lesson" by refusing to vote for candidates in the general election. I don't believe such lessons actually get taught because no sufficiently clear signal is sent when a candidate fails in the general election. Did he lose because too conservative, too liberal, not likeable, a gaffe? There is always spinning about why a candidate lost, and the result is never clear enough to "teach a lesson" that the next nominee must be different.
It has been the stated goal of Communists, Socialists and the Left to infiltrate the major parties and take them over from within.
We see that completion in the Democrat Party.
The GOP is just following the same path and it's expected when the Establishment and their Oligarchy see themselves as high priests of the Federal Beast and the programs and funding they dispense so as to enrich themselves, their interests and supporters. It doesn't matter to them if they control the White House or any of the Houses, as long as they have their long-time seats and a hand on the till - they will protect the Status Quo and join whomever it is that they think poses the least threat to their fiefdom.
Without a doubt the majority in the GOP want to protect the status quo aka Washington cartel. Ted Cruz threatened to break up the country club ... enter Donald Trump. It certainly seems that Trump has dismantled the GOP from the outside. Either way, it appears Hillary and the cartel win.
It's a good deal.That was an uncanny impersonation of Trump spokesman John Barron
They stole them from us, because the world is full of thieves and Mexicans. And we all know, Mexicans are thieves. So the world is Mexico. And Mexico stole it all from us like Mexicans do. And so, we need a wall to keep companies and jobs from being stolen from us by Mexico.
Well I think Trump will make great deals, awesome deals, beautiful deals… you know the best kind of deal that can be made, he will make them and that saying something. No, seriously…. but he will make great deals with the Washington Cartel. Everybody in Washington wins. Everybody. Winners, winners. Nobody ends up a looooooser. No one likes a looooooser. So Trump will make them all WINNERS in Washington. Everyone wins and everyone in America will be taken care of by Washington. Win win for everyone. He wants everyone in America to win. And Trump is going to make Washington big enough to make everyone winners.He can try to make deals with the Devil (GOPe) but they will just ignore it like they do the constitution. NOT good for the country. Just the same Make America Stupid Again.
It's also the Liberal-Left GOVERNING of the liberals and Leftist-surrending monkeys in the GOP.
He can try to make deals with the Devil (GOPe) but they will just ignore it like they do the constitution. NOT good for the country. Just the same Make America Stupid Again.
Was Trump in Georgia? And is Trump the greatest fiddle player too? I hear the devil was in a bind and way behind and willing to make a deal.
How in the name of dread Cuthulu who dreams under the sea....Before addressing your more substantive points, I do feel obligated to point out that Trump seems to have some large neck wattles that remind me of that distinctive Innsmouth "look". So if he perhaps undergoes the full change and swims off to Y'ha-nthlei prior to the Convention, our problem may solve itself. Do you see the resemblance?
No he wasn't treated fairly. I no longer visit FoxNew.com or Drudge.Cruz was treated like crap with every pejorative retweet and tabloid "expose" and none are accountable. If Trump loses, they will blame everyone else. If he wins, he'll pull off TMOAFU, and when the day comes, they'll slip out at night and scrape the stickers off their stuff in shame.
Serious questions; Would a Jew swear on the Bible? Would a Jew touch a Koran?
How...do you think that we got where we are?
Do you seriously believe that people have not been conditioned/conditioned themselves to simply accept whatever the GOP throws their way every election?
Because I personally have been IN several hundred/more like several thousand to be honest, arguments with people saying "I'm gonna vote for the Republican NO MATTER WHAT. IT'S A LESSER EVIL."
They don't even THINK anymore. They DEFAULT. And the GOP is not blind to that mindset. So knowing that the sheepish masses would elect the mixed metaphor 'ham sandwich", they give them progressively more liberal candidates to vote for.
I'm sorry Bill. Your posts are often very insightful although I sometimes disagree with your positions. But to me this argument your presenting is smelling a whole lot like someone who voted for Romney and the rest trying to justify those votes so as to avoid responsibility for their actions.
Quite honestly I see the mess that we are in due to two reasons; First, "We the People" have FAILED to hold our elected officials responsible and secondly, we in the past nominated candidates because of party affiliation rather than qualifications.
The GOP seemingly in order to garner votes has leaned to the left compromising the very principles of the party. It hasn't worked; it didn't work for McCain, and it didn't work for Romney. That ironically is one of the reasons that Trump has the support that he does; he has sold the conservative electorate the notion that he won't lean to the left even though he's been leaning left most of his life. Unfortunately, it is now, during the most critical election in decades, that "We the People" are refusing to vote for a liberal, regardless if he has an 'R' by his name. Yes, those who bolstered Trump WILL bear that responsibility going forward ... I believe he will give us Hillary Clinton and I don't see that GOP maintaining the majority nor seeing the oval office for decades.
The sad part is that Trump's anti-establishment gig is more perception than reality. He has grown rich being in bed with establishment types, no matter which side of the aisle they are on.
So, yes, we are now left with a perceived anti-establishment type: Donald Trump! "We the People" have chosen him over Jebbie or John Kasich exactly because Trump is perceived as an anti-type. We know what the establishment is and what they look like - evil!! bring in an anti-establishment guy... break up the insiders and all the corruption!
"We the People" have spoken. Screw the demoncrats, RINOs, R by their name, GOPe, MSM, etc.
Quite honestly I see the mess that we are in due to two reasons; First, "We the People" have FAILED to hold our elected officials responsible and secondly, we in the past nominated candidates because of party affiliation rather than qualifications.
The GOP seemingly in order to garner votes has leaned to the left compromising the very principles of the party. It hasn't worked; it didn't work for McCain, and it didn't work for Romney. That ironically is one of the reasons that Trump has the support that he does; he has sold the conservative electorate the notion that he won't lean to the left even though he's been leaning left most of his life. Unfortunately, it is now, during the most critical election in decades, that "We the People" are refusing to vote for a liberal, regardless if he has an 'R' by his name. Yes, those who bolstered Trump WILL bear that responsibility going forward ... I believe he will give us Hillary Clinton and I don't see that GOP maintaining the majority nor seeing the oval office for decades.
Republican elites retreat to a Trump-safe space: Mitt Romney's place
.......
Anti-Trump donors, ranging from tech CEO Meg Whitman to associates of hedge funder Paul Singer, are expected to make the rounds, sources said. Representatives for Whitman and Singer didn't comment.
.....
Advisers don't expect Romney to evangelize against Trump in public, but the lineup of Trump foes is almost sure to send a signal.
......
Romney and McCain are two examples where "We the People" have said NO! So many of "We the people" that I know refused to vote for either of those two establishment types. The GOPe gave them to us, and we were supposed to accept them.
Similarly as today we were supposed to just accept Jebbie. :3: Or maybe John Kasich. :3:
"We the People" have spoken. Screw the demoncrats, RINOs, R by their name, GOPe, MSM, etc.
I agree with most of what you have said. Except that I don't think that ""We the People" have FAILED to hold our elected officials responsible."
Romney and McCain are two examples where "We the People" have said NO! So many of "We the people" that I know refused to vote for either of those two establishment types. The GOPe gave them to us, and we were supposed to accept them.
Similarly as today we were supposed to just accept Jebbie. :3: Or maybe John Kasich. :3: No difference between any of the demoncrats, RINOs, R by their name, or GOPe. All the same people, insiders, corrupt, screw you and me, screw the people, pay the Clinton Foundation, get rich off of TPP, get rich off of selling secrets to China, get rich off of helping business in Mexico, get rich off of Saudis importing Islam into my backyard, blah blah blah blah blah!! -- I don't think so!
So, yes, we are now left with a perceived anti-establishment type: Donald Trump! "We the People" have chosen him over Jebbie or John Kasich exactly because Trump is perceived as an anti-type. We know what the establishment is and what they look like - evil!! bring in an anti-establishment guy... break up the insiders and all the corruption!
"We the People" have spoken. Screw the demoncrats, RINOs, R by their name, GOPe, MSM, etc.
The problem of not holding our elected officials responsible and voting party rather than candidate has been going on long before McCain and Romney, although those elections can be seen perhaps as a milestone in "We the People" saying no more. It has taken us many election cycles to get to this point, but again, allowing our elected officials to remain in office because they have an 'R' in front of their name when they vote to the left is in part what got us here. It also doesn't help that in the past we have had leaders in the House and Senate that pander to the left; namely McConnell and Boehner.
"We need better candidates, or the ones we have need to improve between now and 2020. Period."
Better candidates? No candidate is ever going to be perfect. We started out this campaign with a lot of promise and a lot of hope.
We had the best selection of candidates then we've seen in quite a long time and certainly to most it seemed that there was no way that we were going to lose to Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
Because the voters were so turned off by political insiders....
This speaks to people caring more for being entertained than in being governed Constitutionally. Pretty much the end result of Kardashians vs. the educational system. They both work to dumb down the populace. Pretty faces and being entertained are what people value.
There aren't may of us left and that's for sure. Why we are not electing them is my entire point. Guys like Cruz are there. In the overwhelming number of elections there is a far more conservative option available. Perhaps not 'the ideal' conservative. But a 'more conservative' option that ALWAYS gets tanked because people want to WIN and do not give a tinkers dam what they win with.
In 12, EVERY GUY on that primary stage was more conservative than Romney. When you compare the records directly of Romney and Obama, there is solid evidence that the more conservative guy actually DID WIN. Obama at least gave lip service to traditional marriage at one point. But that aside, EVERY GUY on stage was the more conservative choice.
In 16, every guy on that stage was the more conservative choice than Trump. Likewise, every one. Now that is far from saying that most of them were WORTH voting for. But Trump, like Romney, has a record of their life and actions. There is no conservatism in them. There is a metric ton of liberalism.
And who is perpetuating that state if not for the people we elect? How are these people getting to power if not without our votes to put them into office? As I said, they did not suddenly appear by magic. The situation perpetuates exactly BECAUSE of our choices as voters through the people we elect. If we collectively did not do OUR PART, they would simply not be there.
What logical outcome can be expected when the literal premise of electing someone is that they are not 'as evil' as someone else? Clearly the objective is not fixing the problem. It's minimizing the damage compared to what some random other' would inflict.
First, the nature of a political party is to elect the people the party offers. The party, not the people provide support to who they choose to.
Reagan had the charisma. Thats a once in a lifetime event.
Then how does a party that is not in existence supposed to do anything at all? If you do not vote for liberal GOP and they keep losing, the money stops funding them, all the things that go with it, what is this ghost party going to do to force their liberals on anyone?
My entire argument/recipe for action has never once been tried. EVER. Not once has the electorate done anything but ....repeat their mistakes.... and elect/reelect the very people that have totally hosed this country.
What was Bhoner? 70% approval? People WANTED his leftism. So the GOP gave it to them."
There's only one message that matters. Your vote. When you give it, you give full consent and permission. These people have records. There is ZERO excuse. There is no "But". There is no takeback. You vote for Joe Smith, you get everything he is and your vote empowers all he does in office.
Of course thats what happened. We did not vote for a liberal. We voted elswhere or stayed home. They did not get our vote because he was not only not a strong 'enough' conservative, he was not remotely conservative AT ALL.
The GOP was not unaware of Romneys record. They like his voters WANTED that record leading them. Am I to believe that the GOP and electorate put up a candidate that neither wanted to lead America? Am I to believe that 60+ million Americans are so uncaring of their country they simply did not know what that record was?
No, people made excuses as to why they lost with a hard leftist running as a conservative that was easily taken apart because his entire mythos was a lie. And they will go to the end of the earth to excuse their role in it. His record exists. History exists. No excuse about %%%% alters the fact the guy lied faster than his heart beat. All those memes with a hundred mouths on his face didn't get their basis in fantasy.
The problem is the voter does not think at all. They feel. At best.
Every negative there results directly from continuing to empower the party that brings it all to the table.
I think the problem with the GOP is that they try to cater to TOO many groups and thus have abandoned their principles. They no longer represent anything people can hang their hat on. So a lot of people today identify them as center or center left party.
This may come as a shock, so brace yourself: There are more than a few million folks who consider Cruz to be the worst type of vile human being--a hypocrite of the worst order, using God as cover for his perpetual lies and cold, ruthless ambition. Ted Cruz (R-Canada), champion of nothing, is repellent.I stopped supporting Cruz when he sided with the anti trump rioters in Arizona
Just thought you should know.
I stopped supporting Cruz when he sided with the anti trump rioters in Arizona
Yeah trump is not the best candidate ,but I wont vote for somebody who supports or sides with leftist brown shirts
thats not Conservative or American values
This may come as a shock, so brace yourself: There are more than a few million folks who consider Cruz to be the worst type of vile human being--a hypocrite of the worst order, using God as cover for his perpetual lies and cold, ruthless ambition. Ted Cruz (R-Canada), champion of nothing, is repellent.
Just thought you should know.
I stopped supporting Cruz when he sided with the anti trump rioters in Arizona
Yeah trump is not the best candidate ,but I wont vote for somebody who supports or sides with leftist brown shirts
thats not Conservative or American values
You stated..." We're a fractious lot -- it's just the way it is".....Trump's whole style revolves around Alinsky tactics. He whittled down the field like an objecting Board of Directors, peeling off the weak ones first, and ever attacking the strongest positions.
Indeed that is very true ....and why whoever our candidates are they need to have the skill to unite these fractions sufficiently to win the elections......only those with that ability are successful ......I don't see Trump doing that even remotely, in fact quite the opposite and that from the beginning of his run. He has yet to change his approach, I don't think that he can honestly. He doesn't want to understand why that's necessary....or for that matter anything else regarding this election.
I have many concerns he's in this to do the damage we see happening, and not just in the Rep. party, but throughout the nation. Everything the man says creates chaos and division in one form or another. ...and that's a leftist tactic.
I sure don't have the answer to this insane mess of an election....I just know that Trump and Hillary are NOT the answer to this nation......and pretty much any of the other Republican candidates who ran would do for a place sitter until for four years.
:bullie smokin:
I won't mention any names, but in another thread, one poster kept saying that we needed someone -- other than Trump -- who would "unite the country". I pointed out that the country was strongly divided on issues such as abortion, LGBT issues, health care, etc., and that unless people were willing to surrender their belief on all those issues, it is impossible for anyone to unite them. So I asked who she thought could do it, and she said "Ted Cruz".(http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/herding-cats.jpg)
Now, whether I like him or not isn't the point. What I've never been able to understand are those people who don't not understand that other people really, truly, honestly disagree with them, and are not persuadable to their position. And here you guys are blasting Cruz, and you're Republicans.
We're a fractious lot -- it's just the way it is.
When did that happen? Can you provide a link?I cant find the link anymore ,but there was a big uproar over it (tuson riot at trump rally )
I cant find the link anymore ,but there was a big uproar over it (tuson riot at trump rally )Chicago.
Cruz came on the TV later and basically said the riot in Arizona was trumps fault
stuff like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8HGsR49EGw
this cop was there as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Bt6b8PPP0
was not a fan of trump but the way the MSM and the GOPe was justifying that crap turned me off
Chicago.
Listen starting about 1:00 min. He essentially blames Trump, and he got penalized from that day forward. Of course he used slick lawyerly doubletalk, so he can stay on both sides if needed.
I heard no doubletalk, and he was dead-on right. He blamed the perpetrators. He then went on to accuse Trump of fomenting their reaction by the sort of campaign environment he was encouraging..Did he even mention Trump in the clip?
Exactly true.
Did he even mention Trump in the clip?
I heard what you did: The rioters were responsible for their own actions.
Then he basically said that the candidate sets the tone of his campaign.
What he said was true, but he definitely didn't blame the rioters in the streets on Trump, nor did he side with the rioters as was so often claimed.
Of course, pointing that out led to either being ignored or dogpiled with nonsense and vitriol at TOS. Facts, though remain facts. Not sure what response that would have brought here.
Trump's supporters are the proverbial "low-information" voters.When 40% of America gets its 'news' from Facebook and Twitter, and, unfortunately, that gets recirculated ad infinitum, it is a small wonder that so much misinformation gets circulated as "fact", even if it isn't. Some issues can't be reduced to the length of a bumper sticker. Life and politics are more complex than that.
I heard no doubletalk, and he was dead-on right. He blamed the perpetrators. He then went on to accuse Trump of fomenting their reaction by the sort of campaign environment he was encouraging..
Exactly true.
I cant find the link anymore ,but there was a big uproar over it (tuson riot at trump rally )
Cruz came on the TV later and basically said the riot in Arizona was trumps fault
stuff like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8HGsR49EGw
this cop was there as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Bt6b8PPP0
was not a fan of trump but the way the MSM and the GOPe was justifying that crap turned me off
When 40% of America gets its 'news' from Facebook and Twitter, and, unfortunately, that gets recirculated ad infinitum, it is a small wonder that so much misinformation gets circulated as "fact", even if it isn't. Some issues can't be reduced to the length of a bumper sticker. Life and politics are more complex than that.
It is the electronic equivalent of the grade school exercise with the teacher whispering something in the ear of the first student in class, and the students passing it on to the one behind them until the message gets to the last kid in line. What was heard at the end bears little, if any, resemblance to the original message.
Trump's whole style revolves around Alinsky tactics. He whittled down the field like an objecting Board of Directors, peeling off the weak ones first, and ever attacking the strongest positions.
Part of the fractionation of the field in this primary was the full court press against Cruz, from twitter attacks, to the National Enquirer articles his buddy Packer put out, to all sorts of other nonsense including attacking Cruz for the actions of a PAC and claiming victimhood--then using that 'status' to viciously attack Cruz' wife.
Apparently, that worked in America's current angry political arena (other more prosperous times, it likely would not have), but it has caused rifts in the Party, and resentments at the level formerly reserved for at least 1 term Democrats.
It won't work in negotiations with people who would just as soon smuggle in a nuke and blow up a city to the glory of their deity. He can't bluster the Chinese to a halt. And he can't order American business to return to a country with a hostile environment (be that EPA, OSHA, Unions, economy, or whatever).
Hillary is just a crook who would sell her mother for personal gain. She is in it for herself, and the devil take the hindmost.
Neither is acceptable to me.
Trump's supporters are the proverbial "low-information" voters.
:whistle:
:whistle:
@Charlespg, you can't find it because it doesn't exist. I remember Cruz' remarks and they were very reasonable. You might want to find them because you will find that is the case.I may be confusing it with his comments on the Chicago rally shut down
Thanks for answering me though.
I may be confusing it with his comments on the Chicago rally shut down
I was supporting cruz up until that point
I may be confusing it with his comments on the Chicago rally shut downSad that you didn't listen more carefully to just what Cruz said. ..and didn't say.
I was supporting cruz up until that point
Did he even mention Trump in the clip?
Nope... IIRC, it was couched in the third person - so no direct accusation...Sure they do. There was only one candidate behaving like a petulant schoolyard bully on a rant.
However, everyone knows who he was talking about...
Sure they do. There was only one candidate behaving like a petulant schoolyard bully on a rant.
Like blaming a woman in a "little black dress" for her own rape, like muslims do.
Defend him if you must, but his response hurt him politically. Straight condemnation period is best.
:bullie smokin:The national GOP made an irreversible error when they backed Trump over Cruz. Just like McConnell, Cornball, and their cronies did in the senate. They slammed Cruz for his conservative views and really showed how they don't have those values. By doing what they did, they made true conservatives more resolute and stronger. The national GOPe has abandoned its base and will now pay the price. All the begging now for party unity is useless hype.
The "full court press" against Cruz began while he was just a Senator....the press rarely gave him more than a footnote even when he had victories.......also even before the Party knew he might run, Representatives in the Senate got very nasty as they doubled down on anything he presented ...They tried to suffocate him at every turn.....those battles were fierce! But the press rarely spoke of.
Cruz did and still does have a sizable team working with him still in Washington.....and you can bet if there's anyway they can keep Trump form this they'll do so...I recall Cruz saying clearly that Trump is not going to be President. And that had nothing to do with the fact Cruz was running. Those who opposed Trump in the beginning have not been idle.....they were aware early on this could move. And there's a reason Cruz bowed out when he did.....and not as most would like to believe. It's not over til it's over!.....
The national GOP made an irreversible error when they backed Trump over Cruz. Just like McConnell, Cornball, and their cronies did in the senate. They slammed Cruz for his conservative views and really showed how they don't have those values. By doing what they did, they made true conservatives more resolute and stronger. The national GOPe has abandoned its base and will now pay the price. All the begging now for party unity is useless hype.
Very true. Cruz was and is a direct threat to the Kingmakers aka Washington cartel. The GOP abandoned its base a long time ago and they are now paying the price with Donald Trump. I am still of the belief that Hillary will suit them just fine she will conduct the corruption in Washington as usual...all courtesy of Trump.
Very true. Cruz was and is a direct threat to the Kingmakers aka Washington cartel. The GOP abandoned its base a long time ago and they are now paying the price with Donald Trump. I am still of the belief that Hillary will suit them just fine she will conduct the corruption in Washington as usual...all courtesy of Trump.
Yes, but obviously they would rather roll the dice on the Donald instead of getting what they know they don't want in Cruz (reform and revolution against the entrenched political class).
Yes, but obviously they would rather roll the dice on the Donald instead of getting what they know they don't want in Cruz (reform and revolution against the entrenched political class).That was and is my point. They (the GOPe) rolled the dice and came up snake eyes and bit themselves. Just like they did with McCain and Romney, they are trying to run by moving to the left, against their base, and are trying to compete on traditional left grounds were they will ALWAYS lose. By going away from their base they show they stand for nothing, other than just an attemp to get get elected. They need to make a stand. Are they conservative or not? Are they with the conservative base or not? Do they want what was, probably still is, the Tea Party conservatives or not? This is why the #NeverTrump are so adamant.
Yes, but obviously they would rather roll the dice on the Donald instead of getting what they know they don't want in Cruz (reform and revolution against the entrenched political class).
The national GOP made an irreversible error when they backed Trump over Cruz.
I heard what you did: The rioters were responsible for their own actions. Then he basically said that the candidate sets the tone of his campaign.
I can't stand Trump, and preferred Rubio, then Cruz. Still do.
But I didn't like the comments either of them made after Chicago. And to illustrate way...why did both Cruz and Rubio mention the "tone" of Trump's campaign at all in relation to the rioting in Chicago? What was the relevance?
As soon as you try to answer the question of why they said it, you can see why their responses ticked off some people, including (just as one example), me. As far as I'm concerned, the "tone" of Trump's campaign is something that all Republicans should have argued was completely irrelevant to the actions of the rioters. It detracts from the focus on the people who were actually to blame, and invites people to conclude that blame should somehow be shared between the rioters and Trump.
And at the point, the rioters win.
Maybe we were watching different campaigns, but when the race came down to Cruz and Trump, it looked to me like the overwhelming majority of the establishment sided with Cruz. So I don't see them as having preferred Trump at all.
Again, that's exactly the opposite of how I saw the race -- they backed Cruz over Trump. The problem was by the time the anti-Trump elements of the party rallied around Cruz, it was too late. Didn't help that Kasich was still in the race either.
I can't stand Trump, and preferred Rubio, then Cruz. Still do.
But I didn't like the comments either of them made after Chicago. And to illustrate why I didn't...why did both Cruz and Rubio mention the "tone" of Trump's campaign at all in relation to the rioting in Chicago? What was the relevance of Trump's "tone" to the rioting?
As soon as you try to answer the question of why they said it, you can see why their responses ticked off some people, including (just as one example), me. As far as I'm concerned, the "tone" of Trump's campaign is something that all Republicans should have argued was completely irrelevant to the actions of the rioters. It detracts from the focus on the people who were actually to blame, and invites people to conclude that blame should somehow be shared between the rioters and Trump.
And at the point, the rioters win.
Maybe we were watching different campaigns, but when the race came down to Cruz and Trump, it looked to me like the overwhelming majority of the establishment sided with Cruz. So I don't see them as having preferred Trump at all.
Again, that's exactly the opposite of how I saw the race -- they backed Cruz over Trump. The problem was by the time the anti-Trump elements of the party rallied around Cruz, it was too late. Didn't help that Kasich was still in the race either.
I can't stand Trump, and preferred Rubio, then Cruz. Still do.
But I didn't like the comments either of them made after Chicago. And to illustrate why I didn't...why did both Cruz and Rubio mention the "tone" of Trump's campaign at all in relation to the rioting in Chicago? What was the relevance of Trump's "tone" to the rioting?
As soon as you try to answer the question of why they said it, you can see why their responses ticked off some people, including (just as one example), me. As far as I'm concerned, the "tone" of Trump's campaign is something that all Republicans should have argued was completely irrelevant to the actions of the rioters. It detracts from the focus on the people who were actually to blame, and invites people to conclude that blame should somehow be shared between the rioters and Trump.
And at the point, the rioters win.
Wow. I didn't see it that way at all. You're telling me that the Paul Ryans, McConnells, Romneys, Bushs, etc. were openly supporting Cruz over Trump?
It IS the "tone" of Trump's campaign that incites others.....Obviously in order for people to react to Trump there must be something he said or he did that caused them to react.
Probably the same "tone" that tends to stir things up here.
There must be something in the water down here in Texas because I didn't see it that way at all! They were ALL telling us that they prefered Trump over Cruz in fact!
Here is just ONE example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1tIH5XhXa0
I didn't ask what the "tone" was. I asked what Trump's tone had to do with the illegal actions of the rioters.
I don't think it is possible to answer that without at least implicitly saying that Trump is at least partially responsible.
Ryan and McConnell didn't endorse anyway during the primaries, but here are some others:
Here's a video of Jeb endorsing Cruz over Trump:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/jeb-bush-ted-cruz-endorsement/index.html
Romney voted for Cruz as an "anyone but Trump" vote, so he clearly preferred Cruz to Trump as well:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/romney-endorses-cruz-for-wrong-reasons
Rubio also expressed a preference for Cruz over Trump:
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/13/marco-rubio-endorses-ted-cruz-i-hope-they-nominate-a-conservative-cruz-is-the-only-one/
OK, I'll say it then: words have meanings and saying them have consequences.
Weak. Very weak.
Words should never be met with violence. If you're arguing that Trump supporters deserve violence because of Trump's words, then I hope Trump supporters arm themselves against what you feel they deserve.
And I feel Trump is an unqualified, un-knowledgeable ass-clown.
The post of mine you quoted was in direct response to at statement that the "National GOP" backed Trump over Cruz. So your quoting of Jimmy Carter doesn't support that proposition.
The GOPe and Jimmuah Caaaata! are one in the same as far as I'm concerned! They are all members of the same party! The protect us inside the beltway bastards at all costs party!
The national GOP made an irreversible error when they backed Trump over Cruz.
I do recall the Politico running a story about the "Establishment" getting behind Cruz in the last gasps of his campaign. The "Politico" being where the Oligarchy dumps their press releases and leaks. Most of it attributed to "Insiders" if I recall that said the GOP Establishment was prepared to lose the White House to Hillary because they believed doing so would enable them to keep the House and Senate. I thought I remember some of the reasoning being discussed was due to the belief that Trump as the nominee would cost the GOP both houses AND the White House.
As to tone, it would be foolhardy to think that a demagogue who speaks like Trump does about all his targets of derision and ridicule in the manner that he does, has no role in creating a zeitgeist and atmosphere that makes violence easily stoked and engaged. History proves that as a fact.
.... I wasn't the one who made the initial claim that the "National GOP" supported one of those guys over the other period. Another poster did, and I questioned that because it wasn't what I remembered. I then offered actual evidence from Bush and Romney themselves -- not just a Politico story -- that they backed Cruz over Trump. Nobody has posted a substantive response to that.
The "Establishment" clearly put forth forth Cruz as their choice...if only in desperation to stop the Trump Train.
Doesn't anybody recall Lindsey Graham's 'non-endorsement' endorsement of Cruz? He said his personal preferred candidate was Kasich.
It was conducted no differently than a sandlot pickup game, where the last players remaining end up batting 9th and play RF.
INVAR, I wasn't the one who made the initial claim that the "National GOP" supported one of those guys over the other period. Another poster did, and I questioned that because it wasn't what I remembered. I then offered actual evidence from Bush and Romney themselves -- not just a Politico story -- that they backed Cruz over Trump. Nobody has posted a substantive response to that.
Now, if someone wants to offer some actual evidence that the reverse was true, fine. But I'm not sure how much more "National GOP" or "GOP Establishment" you can get than Bush, Romney, and Rubio, and given that all three were quoted as supporting Cruz over Trump...I think it's a tall order.
The left rioting because they don't like something is hardly a phenomenon that began with Trump. Leftist goons have been shutting down and disrupting conservative speakers on college campuses and elsewhere for decades, and it gets virtually no coverage by the left-leaning media because they don't want to be perceived as anti-college student, or as endorsing what the speaker was saying. And when they do it, their rationale has always been "we think that's offensive and you shouldn't be allowed to say it, so this is really your fault".
Am I the only one that remembers that? Heck, the same type of goons, this time from BLM actually disrupted a Democrat meeting by shouting down O'Malley and Bernie. And in general, the media is reluctant to call them out on that for fear of being perceived as supporting the "offensive" ideas. This is a long-term problem that has gotten progressively worse over time, with the radical left constantly moving the goalposts as to what constitutes speech they will tolerate. And this is an issue that conservatives should be united in combatting.
So when thousands of violent leftist goons show up to try to shut down a rally, and then assault peaceful citizens who are exiting the rally, I don't care what Trump is saying inside because that dwarfs the far more serious, long-term problem of the left forcibly silencing viewpoints they don't like. And when Cruz and Rubio say, "the rioters are wrong, but Trump really shouldn't be inciting that stuff with his comments", they are giving the left exactly what they want. The leftist radicals don't care if they are condemned. All they care about is being able to squelch viewpoints they don't like, and if what they get out of this is coverage that is split between condemning them, and condemning what Trump says, then they have accomplished their goals.
I truly cannot believe that so many self-described conservatives cannot see the monstrous crime of using force to shut down opposition political speech for the critical issue that it is. Instead, they want to use it as another opportunity to get in their digs that Trump is an undeserving jackass. Of course he is, but that shouldn't even enter the equation when discussing the violence of the left, because that simply gives them exactly what they want.
Cruz is hardly the establishment candidate. That was Jeb. It was only late in the primaries the GOP started backing Cruz as an alternative to the lunatic. Hardly makes Cruz an establishment candidate though.
Words should never be met with violence. If you're arguing that Trump supporters deserve violence because of Trump's words, then I hope Trump supporters arm themselves against what you feel they deserve.
And I feel Trump is an unqualified, un-knowledgeable ass-clown.
Your response lacks substance. I was asked to provide examples of GOP establishment politicians -- specifically including Bush and Romney who preferred Cruz to Trump, and did exactly that. The only evidence you've offered that the National GOP supported Trump over Cruz is a Trump endorsement by Jimmy Carter.
No, I'm not arguing that - where would you get that idea?
That's a leap too far.
Maybe we were watching different campaigns, but when the race came down to Cruz and Trump, it looked to me like the overwhelming majority of the establishment sided with Cruz. So I don't see them as having preferred Trump at all.The GOP siding with Cruz against Trump was a poison pill.
Again, that's exactly the opposite of how I saw the race -- they backed Cruz over Trump. The problem was by the time the anti-Trump elements of the party rallied around Cruz, it was too late. Didn't help that Kasich was still in the race either.
I do recall the Politico running a story about the "Establishment" getting behind Cruz in the last gasps of his campaign. The "Politico" being where the Oligarchy dumps their press releases and leaks. Most of it attributed to "Insiders" if I recall that said the GOP Establishment was prepared to lose the White House to Hillary because they believed doing so would enable them to keep the House and Senate. I thought I remember some of the reasoning being discussed was due to the belief that Trump as the nominee would cost the GOP both houses AND the White House.
I think that the reluctant acceptance of Trump by the GOP monarchy has more to do with their growing confidence that Trump was not going to upset their fascist gravy train. However Trump's recent outlandish behavior is once again making them sweat that their first instincts may be proven correct and they run the risk of losing both the House and Senate.
As to tone, it would be foolhardy to think that a demagogue who speaks like Trump does about all his targets of derision and ridicule in the manner that he does, has no role in creating a zeitgeist and atmosphere that makes violence easily stoked and engaged.
History proves that as a fact.
I can't stand Trump, and preferred Rubio, then Cruz. Still do.First, how many interviews does a candidate get with 14 candidates? When are they going to mention those issues? Cruz was asked about the riots and he responded that the responsibility for the actions of the rioters belonged with the rioters.
But I didn't like the comments either of them made after Chicago. And to illustrate why I didn't...why did both Cruz and Rubio mention the "tone" of Trump's campaign at all in relation to the rioting in Chicago? What was the relevance of Trump's "tone" to the rioting?
As soon as you try to answer the question of why they said it, you can see why their responses ticked off some people, including (just as one example), me. As far as I'm concerned, the "tone" of Trump's campaign is something that all Republicans should have argued was completely irrelevant to the actions of the rioters. It detracts from the focus on the people who were actually to blame, and invites people to conclude that blame should somehow be shared between the rioters and Trump.
And at the point, the rioters win.
First, how many interviews does a candidate get with 14 candidates? When are they going to mention those issues? Cruz was asked about the riots and he responded that the responsibility for the actions of the rioters belonged with the rioters.
Not after Chicago. The whole episode was disgraceful and Cruz did not stand with Donald in favor of free speech. And I said to myself then "I wonder if Cruz just lost the campaign". Predictably, Trump's support went up, Cruz's went down. This was right around the time of Trump saying women who get abortions should be punished.
We need to learn to have disagreements without being disagreeable. To have disagreements while respecting human beings on the other side. Earlier today over thirty people were arrested at one rally. And then tonight, as violence broke out, the rally was canceled all together. Now, the responsibility for that lies with protesters who took violence into their own hands. But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate who is responsible for the culture of the campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/03/12/just-got-real-ted-cruz-blasts-trump-unrest-chicago/
I also want to mention something about the events this evening in Chicago. This is a sad day. Political discourse should occur in this country without a threat of violence without anger and rage and hatred directed at each other. We need to learn to have disagreements without being disagreeable, to have disagreements while being respecting human beings on the other side.
Earlier today over thirty people were arrested at one rally. And then tonight as violence broke out the rally was canceled altogether. Now, the responsibility for that lies with protesters who took violence into their own hands. But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate is responsible for the culture of the campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that’s facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord.QuoteHe was asked if Trump should have canceled the rally.
I think that the decision should be based on public safety. But I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment, when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence–to punch people in the face. The predictable consequence of that is that it escalates and today is unlikely to be the last such instance. We earlier today in St. Louis over thirty arrested. That’s not how our politics should occur.
You know, the City of Chicago in 1968 saw some ugly days when politics descended into hatred and incivility and even violence and it is my hope that in 2016 that we can appeal to our better angels and avoid going down that road once again.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/11/ted-cruz-says-violence-at-trumps-canceled-chicago-rally-starts-at-the-top/
II recall that the Left had a little riot thingy going on in Chicago--in 1968, among other places.
I truly cannot believe that so many self-described conservatives cannot see the monstrous crime of using force to shut down opposition political speech for the critical issue that it is. Instead, they want to use it as another opportunity to get in their digs that Trump is an undeserving jackass. Of course he is, but that shouldn't even enter the equation when discussing the violence of the left, because that simply gives them exactly what they want.
Cruz didn't say that. He never defended the rioters.
I was neutral on Ted Cruz until he said the Trump Chicago rioters had a point. I think Ted Cruz revealed his human side with that remark. In other words, he wanted to win against Trump so bad he was willing to use leftist language and tactics.
Cruz didn't say that. He never defended the rioters.
The GOP siding with Cruz against Trump was a poison pill. At that point, Trump's claim to fame was that he was an outsider. Cruz, by benefit of having stuck to his guns in DC and fought the GOPe in the Senate was also considered an "outsider"--he lost that when the GOP climbed on board as the other candidates dropped out.
One of the big arguments I saw was that with the GOP hacks on board, it just proved that Cruz was GOP-e all along, and only Trump was a true outsider.
That 'support' hurt him, imho, as intended.
Note the GOP didn't call for Kasich to drop out, so the non-Trump vote was split between Kasich and Cruz.
If the message got lost that rioting to shut down political speech is wrong, maybe it is because the spotlight was taken off the rioting and unjustly put on (especially one of the) candidates for allegedly siding with the rioters.
They know that and just don't care! Nothing is to vile if it furthers the interest of Trump!
Ugh. To be honest, this is the kind of argument that makes me want to quit message boards period.
You are reflexively assuming that anyone who criticizes Cruz must be a Trump supporter. It just can't be that they see an issue differently than you do -- they must be "Trumpists", or "Trumpturds" or "Trumpeters" or whatever other cutesy perjorative of the moment is popular. I think Trump is vile. I supported Cruz from the moment Rubio left the race, and hoped desperately that he would beat Trump. He didn't. And as of today, I wouldn't vote for Trump in the general election.
But to you, it's like everyone is either on one "team" or the other, and therefore must defend to the bitter end every stupid thing "their guy" does or says, and attack mercilessly anything the "other guy' said even if it's just the proverbial stopped clock being right once a day.
Frankly, that entire POV infects this entire thread, and much of the forum. On both/all sides. It was exactly what I left FR to escape, yet here it is again.
I use the word "they" in the general sense. Not every Trump supporter is in that category but my personal observations of them says that most are.Considering that I was the primary person engaging on that issue, the intent was clear.
Considering that I was the primary person engaging on that issue, the intent was clear.
Ugh. To be honest, this is the kind of argument that makes me want to quit message boards period.
You are reflexively assuming that anyone who criticizes Cruz must be a Trump supporter. It just can't be that they see an issue differently than you do -- they must be "Trumpists", or "Trumpturds" or "Trumpeters" or whatever other cutesy perjorative of the moment is popular. I think Trump is vile. I supported Cruz from the moment Rubio left the race, and hoped desperately that he would beat Trump. He didn't. And as of today, I wouldn't vote for Trump in the general election.
But to you, it's like everyone is either on one "team" or the other, and therefore must defend to the bitter end every stupid thing "their guy" does or says, and attack mercilessly anything the "other guy' said even if it's just the proverbial stopped clock being right once a day.
Frankly, that entire POV infects this entire thread, and much of the forum. On both/all sides. It was exactly what I left FR to escape, yet here it is again.
Words should never be met with violence. If you're arguing that Trump supporters deserve violence because of Trump's words, then I hope Trump supporters arm themselves against what you feel they deserve.
And I feel Trump is an unqualified, un-knowledgeable ass-clown.
Trump's words begat violence from his supporters. That violence then begat anti-Trump protests.
Which begat more words by Trump advocating violence from his supporters. ('...pay for his legal bills...')
Which begat violence from the anti-Trump protesters.
...
Now Trump plays innocent?
Bull!
Cruz didn't say that. He never defended the rioters.
Bull youself. Nothing begat nothing. Trump supporters were violent in some instances and as far as I know, they were arrested by the law.
Words should never inspire violence, on either side. Period.
People should never use words *TO* inspire violence.
Trump's words begat violence from his supporters. That violence then begat anti-Trump protests.
Which begat more words by Trump advocating violence from his supporters. ('...pay for his legal bills...')
Which begat violence from the anti-Trump protesters.
...
Now Trump plays innocent?
Bull!
Bull youself. Nothing begat nothing. Trump supporters were violent in some instances and as far as I know, they were arrested by the law.
Words should never inspire violence, on either side. Period.
I don't even know WTF you're trying to say. "Words should never inspire violence?" What on earth are you talking about? They do all the time.
Modified: I see you allowed "to" to be added to your statement. So, what DT was doing was using words "TO" inspire violence. I'm baffled as to your argument now.
We have freedom of speech in this country, Sanguine. We also have the right to peaceably assemble. Trump supporters, no matter how you may think of them, should have the right to attend Trump rallies and not be accosted. Words should never lead to violence. Whatever Trump says, violence isn't deserved by people attending his rallies, who didn't even say those words and might not even support Trump. (yes I've heard of non-Trump supporters going to rallies to check them out)
No.
PEOPLE should never use words to incite violence.
Words are just that, words. Like guns, they cannot do anything by themselves.
That you keep trying to excise the person who spoke the words from those words... speaks very loudly to me.
We have freedom of speech in this country, Sanguine. We also have the right to peaceably assemble. Trump supporters, no matter how you may think of them, should have the right to attend Trump rallies and not be accosted. Words should never lead to violence. Whatever Trump says, violence isn't deserved by people attending his rallies, who didn't even say those words and might not even support Trump. (yes I've heard of non-Trump supporters going to rallies to check them out)
I have condemned Trump repeatedly.
And those "Conservatives" who have thrown a childish hissy fit of total ignorance for months about Trump will bear responsibility for their actions going forward...forever.
.Don't turn the tables on us that didn't support Trump. This election is the bed you Trumpsters made :chairbang:---now lie in it
I don't understand this argument.
Sure, there were a lot of peoole for whom Romney and McCain were not their preferred candidate, but who voted for them in the general election as a "lesser evil" than Obama.
But given that Romney (and McCain) both lost their elections, how is anything to be blamed on those who cast those losing votes? Had they not cast those votes in the general election, the only effect would have been to increase Obama's margin of victory.
So exactly what are the negative consequences of casting a losing vote for Romney for which those voters should bear "fault"?
So wait a minute. Now you're saying that the spotlight was taken off the rioters not because someone put the spotlight on Trump, but because someone pointed out that someone else was putting the spotlight on Trump. I mean, really??It was Cruz who caught unholy Hell for allegedly saying the rioters in the street were Trump's fault.
We have freedom of speech in this country, Sanguine. We also have the right to peaceably assemble. Trump supporters, no matter how you may think of them, should have the right to attend Trump rallies and not be accosted. Words should never lead to violence. Whatever Trump says, violence isn't deserved by people attending his rallies, who didn't even say those words and might not even support Trump. (yes I've heard of non-Trump supporters going to rallies to check them out)
Come on, WTF, you're not making sense. Words do lead to violence, always have, probably always will, and DT is the one saying the words!
He blamed Trump for the rioters, like blaming a lady that gets raped, for the little black dress she wore.Where? Quote where Cruz blamed Trump for the rioters.
At that point, Cruz lost support, and Trump gained support.
We have freedom of speech in this country, Sanguine. We also have the right to peaceably assemble. Trump supporters, no matter how you may think of them, should have the right to attend Trump rallies and not be accosted. Words should never lead to violence. Whatever Trump says, violence isn't deserved by people attending his rallies, who didn't even say those words and might not even support Trump. (yes I've heard of non-Trump supporters going to rallies to check them out)I fully agree with that. No one needs Leftists rioting in the streets, whatever their 'excuse'. THose were not Cruz supporters out there, they were Soros types.
The GOPe didn't give them to you. GOP primary voters did. Your fellow "We the People".
Which actually illustrates why I hate that use of "We the People" when it comes to these kinds of discussions. It really means "Me the People", as in "me and those who think like I do". Because if you listen, you'll hear Bernie and his supporter, Hillary and her supporters, and lots of others call themselves "We the People". Or to put it differently, "We the People" elected Barack Obama. Twice. So I'm not sure use of that collective is something to which we all should be so eager to embrace.
Again....I know people like to think of this malevolent "they" out there to screw us all over, but there is no "they". There is only us, which means Joe Voter, who very often chooses candidates conservatives don't like. Well, "You the People" are about to elect Donald Trump (unlikely) or Hillary Clinton (much more likely).
No words do not always lead to violence. What are you talking about?
You added "always". I didn't.
You are taking your view of what happened and assuming that everyone else saw it that same way you did. I think that's incorrect, and honestly, I don't know how you can possibly know that. Whether you or they ultimately are correct as to why he lost is immaterial -- it is their perceptions that will control the lessons they draw from Romney's defeat.
Look, I largely agree with you on that. But if we both are correct on that, don't you see that the idea of "sending a message" by not supporting a nominee in the general election is doomed to failure? I'm not saying that you or anyone else should vote for a candidate with whom they disagree simply because he's the party's nominee. Trump is a bridge too far for me as well. All I'm saying is that if the purpose of abstaining is to send a message, that's not a very good reason because the message is neither clearly sent, nor clearly received.
I do not see a nominee losing the election as empowering the party.
Wonderful. So why are you arguing again?
Bill, It's not what I saw happen. It's what did happen.
You understand Pavlovian conditioning, correct? For years now the GOP offers a couple things. One of those things is fear. Look across any site on the net and you will find no end of people that are convinced to the point of religious zealotry that only the GOP can win and we have to vote GOP no matter what or the world is literally going to end.
Right on this thread, this site we see it day in and day out.. No one lives in deep space, woke up one morning and had the light of God strike them with the words "Vote GOP or die". We have been conditioned for DECADES actually that it's a 2 party system and to vote any other way is madness. Literal madness if you listen to Romney, Trump, Bush2, McCain, Dole, and Bush1 people.
Now when thats they type the party tells you is your salvation, and that's the type the party tells you that will end they tyranny and the party ONLY supports, fronts and promotes that type, it's not really shocking that we the people react like Pavlovian dogs rather than get zapped by voting for anything but we were told to.
And we see examples of the behavior in nature. No Pavlov required. Throw a bunch of crabs into the boiling water. The rest of the crabs lock on and drag the one that tries to save himself back down. Since humans are in theory at least smarter than crabs (though evidence in hands makes me doubt it strongly), we use words, justification, rationalization and excuses.
It's a lesser evil...
We gotta do this this time because...next time we can vote your way but THIS time is too... (rinse/repeat every election)
A vote for X is a vote for Hillary/Obama/Anyone but who the vote is actually cast FOR.
And a thousand just like it.
Did that God ray bring us that information/revelation? No. We were programmed with it. And we refuse to even accept the premise. Because once we accept the truth of the premise, it leads to the realization that yes. we allowed ourselves to be manipulated. And most would rather die proud and ignorant with a gut full of kool aid than admit that much of their life was spent being herded like sheep.
Someone is doing that herding. Someone created the circumstance we allow ourselves to be subjected to unthinkingly.
There are exactly two options here. Two. You/we continue being led, or not. There is zero middle ground.
1: You continue electing your problems
2: You change course.
At the end of the day you do not have any wiggle room. You do one or the other. If you choose option 1, then the programming worked, the GOP keeps moving left and you are in fact/have become the very thing you hate. The uninformed LIV that emotes and feels rather than the Conservative that believes in right//wrong/constitutional governance.
The GOP is governing as leftists.
The people the GOP offers up are increasingly liberal
Those are facts born out by history. As is the determination by the majority of the right to vote for and ONLY FOR the people the GOP feeds them.
So the idea of constitutional governance by electing Republicans from the GOP is as absurd as drying off by jumping in a pool filled with water.
You understand Pavlovian conditioning, correct? For years now the GOP offers a couple things. One of those things is fear. Look across any site on the net and you will find no end of people that are convinced to the point of religious zealotry that only the GOP can win and we have to vote GOP no matter what or the world is literally going to end.
Right on this thread, this site we see it day in and day out.. No one lives in deep space, woke up one morning and had the light of God strike them with the words "Vote GOP or die". We have been conditioned for DECADES actually that it's a 2 party system and to vote any other way is madness. Literal madness if you listen to Romney, Trump, Bush2, McCain, Dole, and Bush1 people.
Now when thats they type the party tells you is your salvation, and that's the type the party tells you that will end they tyranny and the party ONLY supports, fronts and promotes that type, it's not really shocking that we the people react like Pavlovian dogs rather than get zapped by voting for anything but we were told to.
And we see examples of the behavior in nature. No Pavlov required. Throw a bunch of crabs into the boiling water. The rest of the crabs lock on and drag the one that tries to save himself back down. Since humans are in theory at least smarter than crabs (though evidence in hands makes me doubt it strongly), we use words, justification, rationalization and excuses.
It's a lesser evil...
We gotta do this this time because...next time we can vote your way but THIS time is too... (rinse/repeat every election)
A vote for X is a vote for Hillary/Obama/Anyone but who the vote is actually cast FOR.
And a thousand just like it.
Did that God ray bring us that information/revelation? No. We were programmed with it. And we refuse to even accept the premise. Because once we accept the truth of the premise, it leads to the realization that yes. we allowed ourselves to be manipulated. And most would rather die proud and ignorant with a gut full of kool aid than admit that much of their life was spent being herded like sheep.
Someone is doing that herding. Someone created the circumstance we allow ourselves to be subjected to unthinkingly.
There are exactly two options here. Two. You/we continue being led, or not. There is zero middle ground.
1: You continue electing your problems
2: You change course.
At the end of the day you do not have any wiggle room. You do one or the other. If you choose option 1, then the programming worked, the GOP keeps moving left and you are in fact/have become the very thing you hate. The uninformed LIV that emotes and feels rather than the Conservative that believes in right//wrong/constitutional governance.
The GOP is governing as leftists.
The people the GOP offers up are increasingly liberal
Those are facts born out by history. As is the determination by the majority of the right to vote for and ONLY FOR the people the GOP feeds them.
So the idea of constitutional governance by electing Republicans from the GOP is as absurd as drying off by jumping in a pool filled with water.
Anyway, we vote for the GOP person and they keep giving us people like that (Romney, McCain, etc.) What happens when we don't vote for them? Do they look at the results of the election (Hillary won) and use that as an excuse to move the party, or at least the nominees, even further left? For at least the short term we're stuck, unless/until some real leadership steps up that is capable of explaining why conservatism is a better way and people are willing to take responsibility for their own actions.
I mostly agree with you on this, Norm, but let me play a little devil's advocate here, or maybe that's not quite the right word. Anyway, we vote for the GOP person and they keep giving us people like that (Romney, McCain, etc.) What happens when we don't vote for them? Do they look at the results of the election (Hillary won) and use that as an excuse to move the party, or at least the nominees, even further left? For at least the short term we're stuck, unless/until some real leadership steps up that is capable of explaining why conservatism is a better way and people are willing to take responsibility for their own actions.
Here's the thing. You first have to get comfortable with the fact that we did not arrive here overnight, so we are not going to extract ourselves overnight. Personally I don't think fixing this is possible but I intend to do all I can to try anyway.
As such it would take several elections at least. We are never going to fix this in our lifetime. It took many decades to screw up an it will take double that to set right. Assuming it is fixable at all. We have to begin the process for our kids.
But you have to start. If not now, when? 10 years ago I said this stuff. Today we would be 10 years advanced in the process. And I was far from the only guy in America saying this.
Every election all we hear is why we can't. Why next time we will but not this time. Personally I'm tired of apologizing to my daughter for the world we collectively are leaving her.
If the GOP does not get votes, it goes away. Might take a couple elections but the Whigs will tell you nothing remains without voters. No group will invest in a dead party.
You need black and white. Left/right. Grey in political parties is what we have now where the GOP promotes leftism and the DNC talks patriotism. So you work on what you can. Eliminating the gray/left from the right. And you do that by stripping the people providing that ambiguity of power and control.
It's like just starting out with prepping....you know you need to do it, but where do you start?
The voting booth. This election.
Yep! Good a place as any. I've got 20 years of voting errors to fix.
Trump said he didn't need us, remember? So did many Trump supporters, earlier in the game...we were told he'd win without us, that the Trump train was unstoppable.
What changed?
Anyway, we vote for the GOP person and they keep giving us people like that (Romney, McCain, etc.) What happens when we don't vote for them? Do they look at the results of the election (Hillary won) and use that as an excuse to move the party, or at least the nominees, even further left?
OK, I'm done. Come back when you can make sense.
I think I laid out my argument clearly and cogently. Both Trump supporters and detractors seemed to be able to understand it and many if not most agreed with it.
You seem to be the only one with a problem here.
I think I laid out my argument clearly and cogently. Both Trump supporters and detractors seemed to be able to understand it and many if not most agreed with it.
You seem to be the only one with a problem here.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. You said words should never lead to violence. Wars, real wars, start with words that move people to action. Words can be very powerful things.
Here's the thing. You first have to get comfortable with the fact that we did not arrive here overnight, so we are not going to extract ourselves overnight. Personally I don't think fixing this is possible but I intend to do all I can to try anyway.
As such it would take several elections at least. We are never going to fix this in our lifetime. It took many decades to screw up an it will take double that to set right. Assuming it is fixable at all. We have to begin the process for our kids.
But you have to start. If not now, when? 10 years ago I said this stuff. Today we would be 10 years advanced in the process. And I was far from the only guy in America saying this.
Every election all we hear is why we can't. Why next time we will but not this time. Personally I'm tired of apologizing to my daughter for the world we collectively are leaving her.
If the GOP does not get votes, it goes away. Might take a couple elections but the Whigs will tell you nothing remains without voters. No group will invest in a dead party.
You need black and white. Left/right. Grey in political parties is what we have now where the GOP promotes leftism and the DNC talks patriotism. So you work on what you can. Eliminating the gray/left from the right. And you do that by stripping the people providing that ambiguity of power and control.
Generally, yes. That's exactly what happens. This case may be different just because Trumo's flaws are pretty obvious.
There are only two ways to reverse this: 1) nominate more conservative GOP nominees, or 2) start another, more conservative party.
Personally, i think 1) is by far the best ootion. Creating a new party doesn't manufacture any greter number of conservstive voters. It's just having the conservatives that already exist splinter off. And if there aren't even enough of us to gain control of the 30% of the electorate represented by the GOP, then how would there be enough for that third party to win anything.
The math says our best shot is to keep working to nominate a good conservative nominee.
They can lead to violence, but that should never happen. And in our society and country you should never have to fear violence because of words. Period.
The strategy should be to do both.
1. Work in the GOP to resist the squishes, and continue to promote at the national level for the time being.
2. Work locally to recruit, nominate and elect conservative grassroots leaders for a 3rd party. Start in the more conservative counties and cities, elect them to city councils, local courts, county positions and state legislatures. That will start to render the GOP meaningless, as local elections tend to be less ideological and not party driven anyway. This will help a 3rd party gain some say and brand recognition. If those elected officials truly keep their word and stick to the platform, it will attract the disenfranchised in increasing numbers. As that happens, expand the party to more places for local and state elections, and start nominating national candidates. Eventually the GOP will have to own being the centrist party, and will have to choose whether they align in a coalition with the democrats or 3rd party. If they have any desire to have any say in DC, they will align with the 3rd party, or continue to get swallowed up by the democrats.
3. Work with the elected national representatives and senators to switch to the 3rd party when the time is right. At the national level, the GOP will have to agree to a coalition approach, or none of their initiatives will get through. The 3rd party can agree to the same, but will hold much more power than trying to influence the McConnells etc from within, where they will continue to be ignored. If the GOP refuses to do that, they will become irrelevant, as they are flirting with doing today anyway. In the coalition agreement, a mutual platform should be agreed, and a stronger voting block can emerge.
Not an overnight solution, for sure, but the only way I see a long term future for conservatives having any say. If this doesn't happen, we will continue to get stabbed in the back by the DC GOP, and I, for one, am sick and tired of that betrayal.
The environmental nut-jobs say "think globally, act locally." They're nuts, yes, but that's a good concept when applied to politics generally. We've got 57 states and numerous municipalities to work with.
McCain was my last. Never again. I voted for him to get Palin. Clearly that was a bad idea/Mistake. All it did was ensure that they run a 'Romeny' in 12 and keep the cycle going..
Yes, by Obama math, we have 57 states. But per usual, when dealing with leftists, reality is always 180 degrees from what their perception is.
By the way, hi there. Good to see you.
I did the exact same thing, hoping against hope that Palin might make a difference and stop or slow this progress toward.....well... "progressiveness"..ie communism. On the basis that even false hope is better than no hope at all. Which also induced me to hold my nose and vote for Romney in 2012 (hey, at least he believes in Jesus Christ as our savior, right?). But....this time.....thanks to the progressive left and the useful idiots on the right, we're left with virtually NO choice at all. Hard to imagine that after 2008 and 2012 our 'choices' would get even suckier. But here we are.
They can lead to violence, but that should never happen. And in our society and country you should never have to fear violence because of words. Period.December Seventh, nineteen forty one, a day that will live in infamy...
If enough people decide not to play Prisoner's Dilemma with the major parties we can beat them both!I agree. The biggest reason a third party candidate can't win is that so many have been told that a third party candidate can't win. Talk about circular reasoning and self-fulfilling prophesy.
Just sayin!
I agree. The biggest reason a third party candidate can't win is that so many have been told that a third party candidate can't win. Talk about circular reasoning and self-fulfilling prophesy.
@Bigun
It has long been stated that in a three candidate race with two liberals, the Conservative will win the plurality.
I would very much like to test that theory this season.
With both polling at around 40% each and both with almost 65-70% negatives, it wouldn't be that difficult to strip off some more. Just got the get the social media train moving, because the Lame Stream Medial won't cover a conservation other to bash their insensitivity to liberal causes.
It has long been stated that in a three candidate race with two liberals, the Conservative will win the plurality.
I would very much like to test that theory this season.
The strategy should be to do both.
1. Work in the GOP to resist the squishes, and continue to promote at the national level for the time being.
2. Work locally to recruit, nominate and elect conservative grassroots leaders for a 3rd party. Start in the more conservative counties and cities, elect them to city councils, local courts, county positions and state legislatures. That will start to render the GOP meaningless, as local elections tend to be less ideological and not party driven anyway. This will help a 3rd party gain some say and brand recognition. If those elected officials truly keep their word and stick to the platform, it will attract the disenfranchised in increasing numbers. As that happens, expand the party to more places for local and state elections, and start nominating national candidates. Eventually the GOP will have to own being the centrist party, and will have to choose whether they align in a coalition with the democrats or 3rd party. If they have any desire to have any say in DC, they will align with the 3rd party, or continue to get swallowed up by the democrats.
3. Work with the elected national representatives and senators to switch to the 3rd party when the time is right. At the national level, the GOP will have to agree to a coalition approach, or none of their initiatives will get through. The 3rd party can agree to the same, but will hold much more power than trying to influence the McConnells etc from within, where they will continue to be ignored. If the GOP refuses to do that, they will become irrelevant, as they are flirting with doing today anyway. In the coalition agreement, a mutual platform should be agreed, and a stronger voting block can emerge.
Not an overnight solution, for sure, but the only way I see a long term future for conservatives having any say. If this doesn't happen, we will continue to get stabbed in the back by the DC GOP, and I, for one, am sick and tired of that betrayal.
Welcome in!
In your point 2, you missed both the easiest to achieve and the most vital. TAKE THE SCHOOL BOARDS BACK! Without that ... you're pissing in the wind trying to halt the march of socialism.
If enough people decide not to play Prisoner's Dilemma with the major parties we can beat them both!
Just sayin!
First, how many interviews does a candidate get with 14 candidates? When are they going to mention those issues? Cruz was asked about the riots and he responded that the responsibility for the actions of the rioters belonged with the rioters.
It doesn't get any more simple and plain than that.
At the time, Trump's rhetoric was angry, capitalizing on the anger and frustration of the voters, with protesters inside the rally being handled roughly by his supporters.
Anyone who thinks that didn't attract some backlash is silly. Add in an (allegedly) Soros backed rentamob, and Trump practically had the airwaves to himself.
If the other candidates can't mention more than one issue in a press conference or an interview, where does that leave us? It is up to the voter to be intelligent enough to listen to what is being said and understand it.
As for tone of campaign inviting a response by protesters, where were the street riots in front of Rubio rallys? Or Carson? Or Kasich? Or JEB? Not there. Maybe if they had hired themselves a rentamob they would have had more airtime in the MSM.
Soros is a buddy and financial backer of the lying liberal fraud. The fraud probably asked soros, as a favor, to send a rentamob to give the fraud more credibility. Just a favor between brother plutocrats.That thought did cross my mind. Stage riots to dominate media time when Cruz was going to get some because he was a contender, then blame that contender for allegedly blaming you so you can be a "victim", too. At the time, I thought even the Donald wouldn't be that bad, but from the rest of the lies and slanders and downright nasty crap, I wouldn't put anything past the guy who seems to think the ends justify ANY means.
Welcome in!
In your point 2, you missed both the easiest to achieve and the most vital. TAKE THE SCHOOL BOARDS BACK! Without that ... you're pissing in the wind trying to halt the march of socialism.
Welcome in!
In your point 2, you missed both the easiest to achieve and the most vital. TAKE THE SCHOOL BOARDS BACK! Without that ... you're pissing in the wind trying to halt the march of socialism.
That thought did cross my mind. Stage riots to dominate media time when Cruz was going to get some because he was a contender, then blame that contender for allegedly blaming you so you can be a "victim", too. At the time, I thought even the Donald wouldn't be that bad, but from the rest of the lies and slanders and downright nasty crap, I wouldn't put anything past the guy who seems to think the ends justify ANY means.The fraud has proven there is no lie so great, so ridiculous, so outrageous, so idiotic ally obviously untrue that the fraud will not utter it. Thus, "Sen. Cruz' father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald."
Welcome in!
In your point 2, you missed both the easiest to achieve and the most vital. TAKE THE SCHOOL BOARDS BACK! Without that ... you're pissing in the wind trying to halt the march of socialism.
Cruz was one of the biggest backers of trump.How do you figure THAT????
How do you figure THAT????
Cruz was really trying to be respectful early on, until Trump started being his normal disgraceful self and spread his filth on everyone else. Cruz was never a "backer" of Trump.
Cruz did say very supportive things about Trump early on, unfortunately.
You are so right. One thing possitive living way out here in the Pacific NW, is long before our polls close, the election has been decided by the East Coast and Mid West. So I carry no guilt writting in a candidate, and I will sleep well for the next 4 years that I had no part in electing him or her.
The fraud has proven there is no lie so great, so ridiculous, so outrageous, so idiotic ally obviously untrue that the fraud will not utter it. Thus, "Sen. Cruz' father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald."
I put nothing past the lying liberal fraud.
He only did it so he could win the nomination and save the country.
Cruz was one of the biggest backers of trump.
Cruz did say very supportive things about Trump early on, unfortunately.
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/RT_Trump_Cruz_MEM_150909_16x9_992.jpg)
That's been photoshopped.
How do you figure THAT????
Cruz was really trying to be respectful early on, until Trump started being his normal disgraceful self and spread his filth on everyone else. Cruz was never a "backer" of Trump.
No it hasn't @HonestJohn. There's a whole series of these pictures from an event a few months back. Google "Trump and Cruz" and you can see them all.
Here's another one:
(http://static.politico.com/41/cf/407bcd0541d9b441ca79a41cb075/cruz-trump-ap.jpg)
No it hasn't @HonestJohn. There's a whole series of these pictures from an event a few months back. Google "Trump and Cruz" and you can see them all.
Here's another one:
(http://static.politico.com/41/cf/407bcd0541d9b441ca79a41cb075/cruz-trump-ap.jpg)
The original picture posted has a heavy black line outlining Cruz's face. That's a hallmark of a photoshopped edit. Most likely, someone placed Cruz's face as an overlay over someone else.Stop making excuses. He backed trump because he thought Trump would be gone by Super Tuesday.
The original picture posted has a heavy black line outlining Cruz's face. That's a hallmark of a photoshopped edit. Most likely, someone placed Cruz's face as an overlay over someone else.
Stop making excuses. He backed trump because he thought Trump would be gone by Super Tuesday.
:thumbsup3:
:thumbsup3:
Excuses... excuses...
I've pointed out the problem in your post. Apologize or prove it wrong.
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/675360299747184640
McCain was my last. Never again. I voted for him to get Palin. Clearly that was a bad idea/Mistake. All it did was ensure that they run a 'Romeny' in 12 and keep the cycle going..
I understand your anger and sense of betrayal Norm. I honestly do.
But, as unsavory as Romney was to small-government, Constitution-fealty conservatives ... he was exponentially better than the treacherous Marxist we've suffered under for eight long years.
Reagan famously said: Die-hard conservatives thought that if I couldn't get everything I asked for, I should jump off the cliff with the flag flying-go down in flames. No, if I can get 70 or 80 percent of what it is I'm trying to get ... I'll take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future.
Made sense then - and it makes sense now.
Agreed. Washington is a disaster. Working to insert conservatives from the ground up is the key.
But, as unsavory as Romney was to small-government, Constitution-fealty conservatives ... he was exponentially better than the treacherous Marxist we've suffered under for eight long years.
Stop making excuses. He backed trump because he thought Trump would be gone by Super Tuesday.
People are ridiculous. Cruz is not and never will be clean.Trump won fair and square.
Excuses... excuses...
I've pointed out the problem in your post. Apologize or prove it wrong.
Cruz was treated like a red-headed stepchild by the GOP establishment, the DEMS, Fox News (in particular Sean Hannity) and the MSM. Ironically, the liberal media treated him at times better than conservative news. I find it quite disheartening and appalling when a member of our party stands up and defends our rights, and freedoms, including religious liberty, of "We the People" under the Constitution and is greatly chastised, ridiculed and attacked for doing so. Cruz is absolutely 100% correct, everyone who is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump will bear that responsibility going forward. I find it interesting that many members of Congress are now very reluctant to be associated with Trump and some are declining to be his VP. That speaks volumes. My question is, where were they when they very well could have easily voiced support for Cruz? When Cruz came back to the Senate, he was warmly received and applauded; certainly a change of tune.That's why I expressed my anger and disappointment with the GOP inmy introductory thread.It seems no one wants someone who believes in God to be in politics or their lives for that matter.We instead have two of most carnal,hedonistic peoplein the nation running for the presidency.I guess it's true we get the leader we deserve.
Fifteen other candidates competed against Trump. None of those candidates were as vile and vulgar towards each other as Trump was to them. Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others. If we simply take a step back and look at the huge difference in character alone between Cruz and Trump it is equally disheartening that the masses would chose a bully over a gentlemen to lead our country and to set an example for our children. They chose someone who obviously lacks moral character over someone of great integrity. What does this say about the mindset of his supporters? To think that this is what newly acquired voters are drawn to is frightening. It indicates that we have become a society of bullies, liars, and cheaters who verbally abuse one another and that is now acceptable. All I can say now, is God, please help us!
#Never Trump Don't blame me. I support Cruz.
And this has exactly what to do with a picture being photoshopped?
Your inability to respond to the point raised has earned you an ignore.
He didn't back Trump. He said some nice things about DT and some of the other candidates.
Trump won what?
Cruz was treated like a red-headed stepchild by the GOP establishment, the DEMS, Fox News (in particular Sean Hannity) and the MSM. Ironically, the liberal media treated him at times better than conservative news. I find it quite disheartening and appalling when a member of our party stands up and defends our rights, and freedoms, including religious liberty, of "We the People" under the Constitution and is greatly chastised, ridiculed and attacked for doing so. Cruz is absolutely 100% correct, everyone who is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump will bear that responsibility going forward. I find it interesting that many members of Congress are now very reluctant to be associated with Trump and some are declining to be his VP. That speaks volumes. My question is, where were they when they very well could have easily voiced support for Cruz? When Cruz came back to the Senate, he was warmly received and applauded; certainly a change of tune.
Fifteen other candidates competed against Trump. None of those candidates were as vile and vulgar towards each other as Trump was to them. Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others. If we simply take a step back and look at the huge difference in character alone between Cruz and Trump it is equally disheartening that the masses would chose a bully over a gentlemen to lead our country and to set an example for our children. They chose someone who obviously lacks moral character over someone of great integrity. What does this say about the mindset of his supporters? To think that this is what newly acquired voters are drawn to is frightening. It indicates that we have become a society of bullies, liars, and cheaters who verbally abuse one another and that is now acceptable. All I can say now, is God, please help us!
#Never Trump Don't blame me. I support Cruz.
The fraud has proven there is no lie so great, so ridiculous, so outrageous, so idiotic ally obviously untrue that the fraud will not utter it. Thus, "Sen. Cruz' father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald."Just look at the sins of the Obama Administration, even the Clintons.
I put nothing past the lying liberal fraud.
He was a DT backer. Donald said lots of nasty things and yet he didn't care until he attacked Heidi. Donald is the nominee unless Romney and Co manage to take it from him somehow.
That's something telling: we have certain posters here who insist Ted Cruz is a phony Christian just using the faith to win votes.
He was a DT backer. Donald said lots of nasty things and yet he didn't care until he attacked Heidi. Donald is the nominee unless Romney and Co manage to take it from him somehow.
He said trump was was awesome. He's a hypocrite. Why did trump have to attack him personally before he turned.Cruz was civil with all of the candidates at the beginning, iirc.
Cruz was civil with all of the candidates at the beginning, iirc.
Cruz did this to himself. He was just as bad to Boehner, McConnell and Co as he was to the field. You can't be so surly and attention seeking as he was and expect people to just back you. To be honest, if you were to ask Mitch right now he would say Trump and Cruz were the same. Cruz liked his run first, it was Jeb who was really against him from day one. America has been a society of liars, bullies and cheaters for a long time now. The country focuses on the materialistic. Trump is simply a mirror reflection of America at the present time, and for some it's not pretty.
Cruz told the TRUTH. That is why I admire Cruz. That is why I trust Cruz. That is why I believe that Cruz was our very last hope. He ruffled Boehner's and McConnell's feathers because they are siding with the left and destroying not only the party but the country. Cruz need not make any apologies and I find it quite ridiculous that you see him as surly and seeking attention. Nothing could be so completely untrue about him. We need a couple hundred more like Cruz.
Not only that, Ted Cruz took the fight to where it counts - the state conventions where the delegates are selected to represent 'WE THE PEOPLE' at the GOP Convention in Cleveland. Is is there that the platform is written. It is there that the rules are set. And while Cruz was working his ass off trying to save the Party from the Ryan/McConnell Establishment, Trump was attacking him relentlessly for trying to block establishment delegates from being seated.
The biggest lie of this entire campaign is that Donald Trump wants to overthrow the GOP Establishment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I was always driven by the idea of "Lead by Example" I would start at the top and offer up a good Conservative for President. Its hard to go ground up when Republicans are folding and voting for a dud like Trump. If he gets into office people are going to start dropping off the Republican party. Ground up are the folding in the case of Trump and it could mark the death of our party.
And THAT is the truth!Yep!
Not only that, Ted Cruz took the fight to where it counts - the state conventions where the delegates are selected to represent 'WE THE PEOPLE' at the GOP Convention in Cleveland. Is is there that the platform is written. It is there that the rules are set. And while Cruz was working his ass off trying to save the Party from the Ryan/McConnell Establishment, Trump was attacking him relentlessly for trying to block establishment delegates from being seated.
The biggest lie of this entire campaign is that Donald Trump wants to overthrow the GOP Establishment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Not only that, Ted Cruz took the fight to where it counts - the state conventions where the delegates are selected to represent 'WE THE PEOPLE' at the GOP Convention in Cleveland. Is is there that the platform is written. It is there that the rules are set. And while Cruz was working his ass off trying to save the Party from the Ryan/McConnell Establishment, Trump was attacking him relentlessly for trying to block establishment delegates from being seated.
The biggest lie of this entire campaign is that Donald Trump wants to overthrow the GOP Establishment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I guess that means he is a reverse image? Mirrors always impose a reverse image!
Trump is simply a mirror reflection of America at the present time, and for some it's not pretty.
Now, that's some major spinning. You do remember that Cruz was running AGAINST Trump, do you not? Hard to do both at the same time.
And, Trump may become the nominee but he hasn't won it yet.
That's something telling: we have certain posters here who insist Ted Cruz is a phony Christian just using the faith to win votes.
Yet Cruz's behavior in this example is a perfect example of a Christian ideal: to be dignified in the face of attacks against himself, and fight back when others are in harm's way.
Cruz was civil with all of the candidates at the beginning, iirc.
Wow. You obviously are looking at things from a very leftist perspective. I actually had to read what you wrote more than twice. Cruz did what to himself? Boehner, McConnell and company, better known as the Washington cartel is WHO Cruz stood up to on behalf of WE THE PEOPLE! Boehner and McConnell are leaders who generally side with the left; when that happens you no longer have a two party system. Cruz told the TRUTH. That is why I admire Cruz. That is why I trust Cruz. That is why I believe that Cruz was our very last hope. He ruffled Boehner's and McConnell's feathers because they are siding with the left and destroying not only the party but the country. Cruz need not make any apologies and I find it quite ridiculous that you see him as surly and seeking attention. Nothing could be so completely untrue about him. We need a couple hundred more like Cruz.
Not only that, Ted Cruz took the fight to where it counts - the state conventions where the delegates are selected to represent 'WE THE PEOPLE' at the GOP Convention in Cleveland. Is is there that the platform is written. It is there that the rules are set. And while Cruz was working his ass off trying to save the Party from the Ryan/McConnell Establishment, Trump was attacking him relentlessly for trying to block establishment delegates from being seated.
The biggest lie of this entire campaign is that Donald Trump wants to overthrow the GOP Establishment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I guess that means he is a reverse image? Mirrors always impose a reverse image!Yup. This is a greed, materialistic country, make no bones about it.
Nothing leftist about it. Cruz comes in, calls McConnell and Boehner liars, and then gets put on an island. And then he wants to be president. Where was his support? Donald does the exact same thing to the GOP field and you cry foul? Why? The game is the game. And many moderates, like it or not, felt Cruz was worse then Trump. So how would he have won the election? Trump has never been in government before, is a billionaire, a loudmouth, a vulgarian, etc, yet Cruz was "nice" (your words) to him? Governor Romney has a point here. He should have hit Donnie from day one.
He represents the people as ALL of Congress is supposed to. He would have won the nomination had the media simply given him the same media attention as Donny. As time goes on, many have realized their mistake in backing someone other than Cruz.
Cruz only represents the people who elected him. When he was running for President, he also represented that portion of the GOP electorate that supported him. But it was never anywhere close to 50%.
You're seeing everything through Cruz-colored glasses, like when you said that Cruz could unite the entire country. He can't. The very things that you like about him are also the very things that make others detest him. It is impossible for any candidate to unite the country. Period.
I'm a conservative, so I supported him when he and Kasich were the only alternatives left to Trump, but I still wasn't blind to his weaknesses as a candidate. If you agree with him 100%, he's the perfect candidate, but his manner of speaking and overtly religious messaging is a turn-off for a lot of people. It makes him a very difficult candidate to win a general election, though he might have had a shot at Hillary.
Cruz only represents the people who elected him. When he was running for President, he also represented that portion of the GOP electorate that supported him. But it was never anywhere close to 50%.Cruz represented a clear contrast to the direction the country has been headed in. A choice, not just a lite version of the same ol' same ol'. Given the choice between Hillary or Bernie and Cruz, I think (I pray) the country would choose the latter. If not, we're wasting our time.
You're seeing everything through Cruz-colored glasses, like when you said that Cruz could unite the entire country. He can't. The very things that you like about him are also the very things that make others detest him. It is impossible for any candidate to unite the country. Period.
I'm a conservative, so I supported him when he and Kasich were the only alternatives left to Trump, but I still wasn't blind to his weaknesses as a candidate. If you agree with him 100%, he's the perfect candidate, but his manner of speaking and overtly religious messaging is a turn-off for a lot of people. It makes him a very difficult candidate to win a general election, though he might have had a shot at Hillary.
I agree. The biggest reason a third party candidate can't win is that so many have been told that a third party candidate can't win. Talk about circular reasoning and self-fulfilling prophesy.
Cruz represented a clear contrast to the direction the country has been headed in. A choice, not just a lite version of the same ol' same ol'. Given the choice between Hillary or Bernie and Cruz, I think (I pray) the country would choose the latter. If not, we're wasting our time.
Then in your eyes, we really are wasting our time.You are saying Cruz couldn't beat Hillary or Bernie?
I think we have to be realistic and acknowledge that while ideology and direction matter a lot, so too does charisma and good communication skills. Ted lacks the former, and his skills in the latter are too narrow. Just because voters wouldn't vote for Ted doesn't mean that might not vote for someone who is just as conservative, but who has a better presentation.
Who thinks the whole country can be united? That's a pipe dream right off.
You are saying Cruz couldn't beat Hillary or Bernie?
If the electorate wants a Hillary or Bernie, I'm right, we are wasting our time.
As far as Cruz' being able to communicate, he transmits just fine. I heard him 5X5, loud and clear.
Maybe some of the receivers aren't doing so well.
You are saying Cruz couldn't beat Hillary or Bernie?
Maybe not after the smear campaign of lies that Trump threw at him, but before that, handily.
If that is the case, though, Trump will fail miserably, too, as more people seem to be awakening to his bombastic and vacuous nature, albeit somewhat belatedly.
If the electorate wants a Hillary or Bernie, I'm right, we are wasting our time.
As far as Cruz' being able to communicate, he transmits just fine. I heard him 5X5, loud and clear.
Maybe some of the receivers aren't doing so well.
LOL! So Cruz might have won against Hillary....if not for Donald Trump's words during the campaign.
OOOOHKAAAYYY! :whistle:
Trump's words are LIES and I don't forsee that changing, nor do I see him following through on anything that got him the nomination in the first place.
As you know I am a #Never Trump and I'm sure you'll get a chuckle out of this; my hubby is now aboard the Trump train ... after 34 years of marriage ... just when I finally thought I knew the guy! :shrug:
LOL! That's funny, @libertybele
My lady friend is an avowed Hillary supporter....and the one before that, a wonderful girl from Trinidad/Tobago...is a freaking Communist.
**nononono*
Cruz need not make any apologies and I find it quite ridiculous that you see him as surly and seeking attention.
That's equally as funny ... thank God for humor right? :silly:
When he was running for President, he also represented that portion of the GOP electorate that supported him. But it was never anywhere close to 50%.
What can I say. Damn DDs distracted the hell out of me. :beer:
They cannot justify Trump without damning Cruz.
They'll be the death of all men one way or another. :laugh:
@Maj. Bill Martin , I've just read over your recent comments in one gulp, and I'm wondering why you're here and putting so much effort and thought into your comments. Generally, someone who is critical is most effective when they have an alternative vision to offer. Criticism for that sake of criticism doesn't offer much and tends to just irritate others. Just curious - what is it you want to happen?
They cannot justify Trump without damning Cruz.
They cannot justify Trump without damning Cruz.
In terms of...what?
First, I've never liked the whole cheerleader approach to message-boarding period, where people defend "their guy" to the death no matter how wrong he is on a particular issue, and vice-versa for the people they don't like. I think it is more important to take a stand on the merits of each issue, regardless of how the candidates break down on those issues. So if you're sensing from me a lack of consistency in terms of who I support, that's because I evaluate what is said, not who says it.
Second, I honestly don't know whether or not I will vote for Trump in November. I've been as honest about that as I can whenever it comes up. So trying to be honest about how I feel on particular issues is selfish on my part -- it helps clarify the issues, and helps me figure out where I should end up standing.
But big picture, here's where I stand:
I don't believe in the "uniparty" or "GOP-e" stuff, for the most part. I think most of those Republicans simply have a different strategy in that they prioritize winning over ideological purity. They don't take the Cruz approach not because they like Obama's ideas, but because they don't think Cruz's defunding approach will succeed in the long term, and that it will end up costing so many votes that it will hand over control to the Democrats and things will get even worse. Rightly or wrongly, I think they truly believe that. So I don't view them as the enemy as much as flawed allies.
I also don't buy into some of the doom and gloom within conservatism. Not yet, anyway. Charisma/messaging, etc. is an absolutely essential skill for a Presidential candidate, and we've been unlucky in not having a candidate who combines that with conservatism for awhile. But that is still achievable if the right candidate emerges, and it may very well be one of the guys who failed this time. Maybe a new and improved Cruz, or Rubio, or Jindal etc.. next time around. I'm sure all of those guys -- and others -- learned something from their failure this time
So to answer your question, what I don't want to see happen is for those of us who oppose Democrats to tear ourselves apart to the point where we cannot rally around the right candidate if he/she emerges. I dislike intensely the personalization of arguments, where people engage in what I see as juvenile name-calling -- "Trumpturds" and "Cruzbots", for example. Seriously, what the hell is that crap?
And that mindset is exacerbated by those who see every single issue and statement as a chance to attack the guy they don't like, and to use personal insults against the people on the other side of the debate. All that does is drive people further apart, and they'll start disagreeing on issues not because of the issue itself, but simply because of who is on the other side. Everyone who posts on a message board isn't a wordsmith, so people aren't always going to express their opinions perfectly. Yet, less than perfect expression is sometimes jumped on with glee by those who just want to get a dig in for "their guy", or against "the guy" they don't like. Maybe if we more often tried to figure out where the other side was coming from and not always attach the worst possible interpretation to what they say, we might actually communicate better.
I'm not saying we cannot disagree, or that disagreements can't be strong and sometimes passionate. I'm just opposed to the personalization of attacks, and the cheerleader-esque approach of always backing one side over the other, regardless of the nuances on the argument. Because in the end, what is left is a whole bunch of hard feelings, some of which never heal, and which can linger to the point of weakening whatever opposition we can muster to those statist goons on the left. Not to mention that I personally get zero enjoyment out of discussing issues when it devolves into "my guy is better than yours, nyah nyah nyah". Which, if you look back a bit in this thread, is kind of what it is starting to look like.
This thread needs to end. It's my least favorite and the people commenting on it just keep getting progressively dumber. Including me, who is now commenting on it. :laugh:
When did your homeroom teacher ask you to be a hall monitor, Weird? :smokin:
This thread is just fine, and as far as I know, one person's random opinion as to whether or not it needs to be shut down doesn't hold much water.
btw, libertybele's last post was far from "dumb." Nothing she ever says is "dumb."
When did your homeroom teacher ask you to be a hall monitor, Weird? :smokin:
This thread is just fine, and as far as I know, one person's random opinion as to whether or not it needs to be shut down doesn't hold much water.
btw, libertybele's last post was far from "dumb." Nothing she ever says is "dumb."
Cruz only represents the people who elected him. When he was running for President, he also represented that portion of the GOP electorate that supported him. But it was never anywhere close to 50%.
You're seeing everything through Cruz-colored glasses, like when you said that Cruz could unite the entire country. He can't. The very things that you like about him are also the very things that make others detest him. It is impossible for any candidate to unite the country. Period.
I'm a conservative, so I supported him when he and Kasich were the only alternatives left to Trump, but I still wasn't blind to his weaknesses as a candidate. If you agree with him 100%, he's the perfect candidate, but his manner of speaking and overtly religious messaging is a turn-off for a lot of people. It makes him a very difficult candidate to win a general election, though he might have had a shot at Hillary.
I didn't mention LB. Frankly everyone is blurring together on this tedious thread.
So, the obvious question is...why are you here? Not that you shouldn't be, you just obviously don't want to be, so why?
Thank you very much.
I didn't mention LB. Frankly everyone is blurring together on this tedious thread.
Keeps popping up on my unread items.
Mayor Koch of NYC (a pretty popular mayor in his day) used to say, if you agree with me on eight out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist.
IMHO I see personal attacks in here far and few between and personal attacks really aren't permitted or accepted.
This particular thread IS about Cruz's statement; "those who bolstered Trump will bear that responsibility going forward".
Sooo... in this particular thread you either agree with Cruz's statement or you don't.
I wish that Trump was a candidate that we could all stand behind, but he isn't. That isn't the fault of those who support or did support Cruz, or Rubio or Kasich or Bush, etc. That is the fault of Trump himself. How the heck do you defeat Hillary when we don't have a candidate that can defeat her because of how he represents himself? All she has to do is point out his personality and attach it to an issue and she makes him look wrong regardless if he's right or not.
In fact, how do you defeat Hillary when the objective of our nominee is to hijack the GOP in the first place? He didn't go after Hillary and hasn't gone after Hillary with the same intensity that he used against members of his own party.
I agree with all that, but that goes beyond the initial "bearing responsibility" narrative. By the same token, I agree that he's a horrible nominee, but whether someone else would have been better is rather beside the point now.
I've lost count of the number of times I've read something like "bleep" or "Cruzbots", or other personal insults.
Here you go. I've compiled a comprehensive list for you. I can only speak to those personal insults that were directly specifically at me as an early Trump supporter both here and at FR. Of course, if you confront them they'll only deny they ever did it....
Trumpys
Trumpholes
Trumpaloompa
Trumpsters
Trumpanzees
Trumpenistas
Trumpers
bleep
Trump Cult
Trump Diehards
The Trumpkin Proletariat
Trumpites
Trumpkins
Trumpettes
Trumpists (thanks Rush Limbaugh)
Turmpeteers
Trumpbots
Trumpnutters
Good, huh? Boy do I feel thoroughly insulted....
Don't forget "Trumpazoids". :laugh:
Good, huh? Boy do I feel thoroughly insulted....
Don't forget "Trumpazoids". :laugh:
Trumproids.
AC I think you ought to patent and market the Trump tush cush...who needs a t-shirt or a ball hat? :silly:
Good grief. Back to topic. Those who bolstered Trump 'will bear that responsibility going forward'. His statement was a response to a question he was given on the Barry show when he was asked whether he thought he was treated fairly in the GOP primary, with the host mentioning Fox News specifically. There is no denying that Trump lied and he created a media frenzy in order to get the nomination. It would seem that since the Trump supporters (notice I did not use the word Trumpsters or Trumpeteers or Trumbots) find that this statement is offensive that they feel that the media doesn't hold any responsibility? Considering Trump was allowed more air time and the fact that even his rallies were televised is hard to dismiss.
There's been name calling on both sides. I don't like using the names, I have only ever used Trump supporters, though I don't really see much harm in Trumpers/Cruzers just for brevity. I've never seen Trumpaloompa though, I have to admit it made me chuckle.
And when the media starts helping anyone that immediately should tell any conservative all they need to know!
I want the guy the media and the inside the beltway bastards hate!
Here you go. I've compiled a comprehensive list for you. I can only speak to those personal insults that were directly specifically at me as an early Trump supporter both here and at FR. Of course, if you confront them they'll only deny they ever did it....You forgot Orange Baboon or Baffoon, although it doesn't start with a T. LOL
Trumpys
Trumpholes
Trumpaloompa
Trumpsters
Trumpanzees
Trumpenistas
Trumpers
bleep
Trump Cult
Trump Diehards
The Trumpkin Proletariat
Trumpites
Trumpkins
Trumpettes
Trumpists (thanks Rush Limbaugh)
Turmpeteers
Trumpbots
Trumpnutters
Good, huh? Boy do I feel thoroughly insulted....
You forgot Orange Baboon or Baffoon, although it doesn't start with a T. LOL
I just call em "liberals". ;)
Ok. So this thread is pretty much hijacked.
:hijack:
And the most apt of all..... (s)Trumpets
I'd be stressed too, if I had gotten duped and had to defend a candidate who has no defense.
Ok. So this thread is pretty much hijacked.
:hijack:
38+ pages....it's about time.
38+ pages....it's about time.
I was just about to post that nearing 1000 comments everything's already been said.
I mentioned that to a #NeverTrump earlier and they shot back, "Oh, now you're saying that I'm redundant, that I repeat myself, that I say things over and over!"
You can't make this stuff up. Well, yeah actually I did. :silly:
Those are words reserved for Trump himself and not his supporters...we could make a whole other list:Don't forget my personal favorite, Darth Combover.
Orange Orangutan
Orange Jello Brain
Orange Baboon (not permitted in here by the way)
Buffoon
Bombastic Narcissistic Psychopath
Hay haired mountebank
Don the Con
Herr Drumpf
The Manhattan bully
Trumpitler
Golden Wrecking Ball (courtesy of Palin)
Short-Fingered Vulgarian
Tangerine Tornado
The New Führer
Cheeto-Dusted Bloviator
Trump of Doom
Donald Duck
The Donald
Donny
I was just about to post that nearing 1000 comments everything's already been said.
I mentioned that to a #NeverTrump earlier and they shot back, "Oh, now you're saying that I'm redundant, that I repeat myself, that I say things over and over!"
You can't make this stuff up. Well, yeah actually I did. :silly:
I don't think Trump supporters are stressed I think they are more like a bunch of lost sheep. ****sheep**** ****sheep****
(To keep it going to 1000 posts!)No, please, let's put this one to rest. Please!
I like cheese.
No, please, let's put this one to rest. Please!
The fact of the matter is that the kinds of rabid supporters for Trump that are his most vocal and insistent acolytes are NEVER going to bear any responsibility for whatever Trump says or does that garners a negative.
They will do what they do now, blame everyone else for failing to understand what Trump really means. No matter what failures Trump accrues, just like Obama - his faithful will blame it on everyone else.
It's what New York Liberal Leftists do.
Trump's faithful continue to insist that if Trump loses to Hildabeast, the responsibility will not be due to selecting the absolute worst possible candidate with the highest negatives, but they have pre-hung the responsibility for a Trump loss upon those Conservatives who refuse to vote for him.
Feeble attempt I know…. to wrest the subject from the thread hijackers.
Just out of curiosity, has there been anyone -- either a Trump supporter or a Trump opponent -- who claims that those who bolstered Trump won't bear responsibility going forward? I mean, a Trump supporter might prefer to think of it as "credit" rather than "responsibility" (because being responsible for something can be either good or bad depending on how it turns out), but the concept is the same.
So has anyone actually objected to the premise of the thread title?
Just out of curiosity, has there been anyone -- either a Trump supporter or a Trump opponent -- who claims that those who bolstered Trump won't bear responsibility going forward? I mean, a Trump supporter might prefer to think of it as "credit" rather than "responsibility" (because being responsible for something can be either good or bad depending on how it turns out), but the concept is the same.
So has anyone actually objected to the premise of the thread title?
What is amusing to me is that although the responsibility will surely belong to those who support Trump, Just my saying so leaves me open to being accused of siding with rioters in the streets, Hillary, Karl Marx, Congressional Democrats, Occupy Wall Street, and helping John Wilkes Booth make it to the theater to engage Mr. Lincoln. Deflection of responsibility comes after disaster in that camp, if past performance is any indicator of future returns.
Just out of curiosity, has there been anyone -- either a Trump supporter or a Trump opponent -- who claims that those who bolstered Trump won't bear responsibility going forward? I mean, a Trump supporter might prefer to think of it as "credit" rather than "responsibility" (because being responsible for something can be either good or bad depending on how it turns out), but the concept is the same.
So has anyone actually objected to the premise of the thread title?
Rabid Trump supporter = voter – millions of them. In all probability, enough to swing the election in November.
So, tell me then, how should one describe supporters of the campaign of a certain politician named, Mr. #NeverTrump, who, seems to me suspended his campaign several weeks ago. Canadian born, wasn't he?
Can his supporters be described as rational? rabid? bitter? What descriptive fits them? But before deciding how best to slander them, might I suggest you take into account the ungracious manner in which the loser of Indiana, Mr. #NeverTrump, withdrew from the race without so much as mentioning the name of, or giving a customary shoutout to, the winner of the state, Mr. Trump? I think that speaks volumes, indicating a certain sore loser quality retained in the demeanor of Mr. #NeverTrump's followers. Don't y'all agree?
No. Because by your Wonderland inspired logic, George Washington was a bitter/sore loser over that little issue with taxation and King George. So he took his ball and went home rather than accept the just and right rule of England.
Rabid Trump supporter = voter – millions of them. In all probability, enough to swing the election in November.
So, tell me then, how should one describe supporters of the campaign of a certain politician named, Mr. #NeverTrump, who, seems to me suspended his campaign several weeks ago. Canadian born, wasn't he?
Can his supporters be described as rational? rabid? bitter? What descriptive fits them? But before deciding how best to slander them, might I suggest you take into account the ungracious manner in which the loser of Indiana, Mr. #NeverTrump, withdrew from the race without so much as mentioning the name of, or giving a customary shoutout to, the winner of the state, Mr. Trump? I think that speaks volumes, indicating a certain sore loser quality retained in the demeanor of Mr. #NeverTrump's followers. Don't y'all agree?
Rabid Trump supporter = voter – millions of them. In all probability, enough to swing the election in November.
So, tell me then, how should one describe supporters of the campaign of a certain politician named, Mr. #NeverTrump, who, seems to me suspended his campaign several weeks ago.
might I suggest you take into account the ungracious manner in which the loser of Indiana, Mr. #NeverTrump, withdrew from the race without so much as mentioning the name of, or giving a customary shoutout to, the winner of the state? I think that speaks volumes, indicating a certain sore loser quality retained in the demeanor of Mr. #NeverTrump's followers.
You don't believe that at all. If you did, you would not bother harassing, cajoling, poking, intimidating and insulting Conservatives who have no intention of voting for Trump in November..........
And your panties are in a bunch because Cruz did not give him a 'customary shout-out indicating a sore loser quality'??????
Methinks you project too much.
Rabid Trump supporter = voter – millions of them. In all probability, enough to swing the election in November.
So, tell me then, how should one describe supporters of the campaign of a certain politician named, Mr. #NeverTrump, who, seems to me suspended his campaign several weeks ago. Canadian born, wasn't he?
Can his supporters be described as rational? rabid? bitter? What descriptive fits them? But before deciding how best to slander them, might I suggest you take into account the ungracious manner in which the loser of Indiana, Mr. #NeverTrump, withdrew from the race without so much as mentioning the name of, or giving a customary shoutout to, the winner of the state, Mr. Trump? I think that speaks volumes, indicating a certain sore loser quality retained in the demeanor of Mr. #NeverTrump's followers. Don't y'all agree?
CHEEEEEEESE!!!
Rabid Trump supporter = voter – millions of them. In all probability, enough to swing the election in November.
So, tell me then, how should one describe supporters of the campaign of a certain politician named, Mr. #NeverTrump, who, seems to me suspended his campaign several weeks ago. Canadian born, wasn't he?
Can his supporters be described as rational? rabid? bitter? What descriptive fits them? But before deciding how best to slander them, might I suggest you take into account the ungracious manner in which the loser of Indiana, Mr. #NeverTrump, withdrew from the race without so much as mentioning the name of, or giving a customary shoutout to, the winner of the state, Mr. Trump? I think that speaks volumes, indicating a certain sore loser quality retained in the demeanor of Mr. #NeverTrump's followers. Don't y'all agree?
Cheddar's better
So...how would you describe supporters of Trump and why do you support him?
Trump accused his father, the day before Indiana, of being involved in a plot to kill John F. Kennedy with Lee Harvey Oswald.
Would you be gracious to a sonofabitch who accused your father of murder?
Yes, and there have been various threads here and across the net filled with exactly that including how people that vote FOR a candidate are not responsible for what he does at all....In fact I believe you and I have discussed it.
The Romney faithful still push that one regularly and it cannot apply to one person and not another.
True. And I understand completely why someone who casts a vote shares responsibility for what that candidate does in office. Pure common sense.
And I still don't understand what responsibility attaches to a general election vote for a candidate like Romney who loses, and therefore never takes office, and never exercises power. So likewise, if someone in the general election casts a vote for Trump, and Hillary clobbers him, and don't see what responsibility attached to that vote because it was of no consequence.
So I'm not applying different rules to different candidates. It's the same rule -- a vote cast for the losing candidate in the general election doesn't have any responsibility attached to it because of the lack of consequences for that vote.
With Trump's latest bombastic statement accusing American soldiers of stealing money for the Iraqi reconstruction, I think Cruz's statement bears repeating;" those who bolstered Trump WILL bear that responsibility going forward". When Trump is elected at the convention ... THEY ARE responsible. IF Trump is elected POTUS and continues us on our current path of destruction, THEY ARE responsible.
He's really becoming downright frightening. I think he's becoming unhinged.
He's what he's always been. What is frightening is the sheer number of people that simply don't care. They will put their pride before their country as they do every election and vote for him with bells on because hes 'a Republican'.
In 2020, assuming a country recognizable as 'America' still exists with a functioning election system, the GOP will then run Anita Sarkeesian because Trump was not liberal enough to satisfy them and the same party faithful will vote for her resulting in two full terms for Hillary Clinton.
A little late, but I believe that there are now a lot of people that will no longer vote for a candidate simply because of party affiliation.
Unless a true miracle is bestowed upon this country, I predict this will be our last presidential election.
Trump's accusation about our troops in Iraq is just plain hideous! Every time you think he can't stoop any lower, he finds a way... **nononono*
With Trump's latest bombastic statement accusing American soldiers of stealing money for the Iraqi reconstruction, I think Cruz's statement bears repeating;" those who bolstered Trump WILL bear that responsibility going forward". When Trump is elected at the convention ... THEY ARE responsible. IF Trump is elected POTUS and continues us on our current path of destruction, THEY ARE responsible.
Aw geez...... :whistle:
DC, you've explained why you are a Trump supporter in the past. I get that and I respect your right to your opinion. With all the outlandish comments that Trump has made I am honestly trying to understand why he still has supporters. He continues to do nothing to indicate that he will actually follow through with what he says and to me his behavior and comments continues to scream out that his intent has been all along to derail this election right into the lap of Hillary Clinton. How do his supporters expect him to win the general when he continues to alienate groups of people with the latest being U.S. troops? Our troops! I can't think of a bigger group he could have attacked as that group encompasses both political parties, men, women, millennials, LGBT, Hispanics, Asians, blacks, etc. It is now to the point that I am hard pressed to find a group that he hasn't insulted ... I come up with Trump himself.
he continues to alienate groups of people with the latest being U.S. troops? Our troops!
Yes, it's disgusting for sure but then if I walk into a whorehouse, I don't expect to find ladies of refinement. I expect to find whores. As I said many times, Trump is what he is. Sure he's scum. Sure he is a fraud. Sure he lies as easily as breathes. But he's not the problem. The problem is the people that would elect such a man because without them, a guy like trump wouldn't get near the White House even with an invitation.
5 years or so back, one foreign journo said that about Obama. It was true then and it's true in regards to Orange Glorious.
Every problem this country has can be DIRECTLY attributed to liberals. The only people with the power to actually do anything about those problems from a government/leadership standpoint are in DC. Now it does not take a leap of math, statistics or logical deduction to realize that the GOP and other liberals infesting DC like a cancer did not appear there in a puff of happy thoughts and unicorn farts. LIBERAL Voters elected them.
ON PURPOSE.
The same liberals that now want Trump to lead this country.
True. Except my interpretation of Cruz's statement "those who bolster Trump bear that responsibility going forward" is a reference to the candidates (including Cruz himself) who were so much better. In other words we had a lot of hope and promise going into this election and Trump obliterated it...by design in my opinion.
I think Cruz was likely referring more to those who bolstered Trump in the primary, and therefore left us with this incredibly poopy choice in November.
Part of the problem rather than the solution is that there are a lot of conservatives who continue to vote for the incumbent simply because they have an 'R' next to their name;
Thats about the polar opposite of conservative. But it is the definition of idiocy. By no definition is voting for an R because they are an R conservative. It's textbook Democrat plantation politics. I have an excusemaker on another thread right now trying to pass off conservatism as whatever someone wants it to be.
Amazing how people will just rewrite reality to conform with their desires.
If conservatism is whatever someone wants it to be I wonder what liberalism is?
, that they do not know whether or not if a gay guy that brags about seducing his priest is a conservative or not,
What??
That kind of behavior to me is not conservative. I don't think any reasonable definition could conclude that it so. That being said, I don't know any of Milo's opinions on other topics. I know of his more outrageous behavior and his work on college campuses. I know that he is strong anti-PC and anti-SJW and those are two forces looking to radically change society along their own preferred lines. SO in that way, he is conservative.
Another point is that he is British, so their version of conservatism may mean different things to them.
So that is my answer Norm. Now my question to you is, who defines what conservatism is?
How odd. An hour ago you had no idea. And suddenly you do? Imagine that.
I never said I had no idea. I have my own opinion of what it is, and so do you. Period. To me your just another garden variety screamer on this forum. Your opinion ain't worth a bucket of warm piss. Nor is mine for that matter. :laugh:
You are half right. Yours isn't.
I never said I had no idea. I have my own opinion of what it is, and so do you. Period. To me your just another garden variety screamer on this forum. Your opinion ain't worth a bucket of warm piss. Nor is mine for that matter. :laugh:
No really. Everyone has their own opinion. And they all stink like the old joke goes. But we all have our own view of what "conservatism" is.
Actually you have your differing opinion. Conservatives are pretty much aligned with what I mentioned above.
Trump making references to his penis at a nationally televised debate and making pee-pee jokes at rallies is just another of the many signs that this man should not be President.
Not really. Many different "flavors" of conservatism. Paleo, neo, social conservatives, etc etc.
Stupid to think your own narrow definition is universal.
And thats why your opinion isn't worth listening to. All flavors of conservatism share the common beliefs above.
Milo Yanopoulous. Alt Right wonderboy. In a Youtube interview with "Sargon of Akad". He was rather proud of his accomplishment bragging it was where he got his oral sex skills.
THAT is conservative? At least one of your fellows here on TBR 'doesn't know".
With Trump's latest bombastic statement accusing American soldiers of stealing money for the Iraqi reconstruction, I think Cruz's statement bears repeating;" those who bolstered Trump WILL bear that responsibility going forward". When Trump is elected at the convention ... THEY ARE responsible. IF Trump is elected POTUS and continues us on our current path of destruction, THEY ARE responsible.
No really. Everyone has their own opinion. And they all stink like the old joke goes. But we all have our own view of what "conservatism" is.
Members of both parties have FAILED us. There are a lot of conservatives or conservative-minded voters who are backing Trump as well. Part of the problem rather than the solution is that there are a lot of conservatives who continue to vote for the incumbent simply because they have an 'R' next to their name; McConnell, McCain, Graham, etc.
Is it so very hard to look it up? Sheesh. They've got this new thing called the internet and everything...
These "flavors" have actually wildly opposing viewpoints on many issues actually. For example neo and paleo flavors are directly opposed on many many issues.
Look what up where? The definition of Conservatism? Well freerepublic has it's own answer (obviously). GOP BR has it's own answer, etc. etc.
You're exactly right. And that's why we end up nominating the people we do. As we've seen on this very board, there are some people who are conservative who don't like politicians who enmesh politics and religion. Or at least, those conservatives believe that won't play in the general election, so they consider those candidates to be unworthy of nomination. That's partly why Huckabee could never get above his 20%. Then there are the small-government libertarian conservatives who often a despised by the social conservatives. And it goes on an on. So in the end, we often end up picking guys whose views are largely watered down, because they don't piss off the majority of Republicans. It's lowest-common denominator nomination, with the default being "well, if I have to pick among this group, I might as well take the guy I think has the best chance of winning."
I think far too many conservatives subscribe to the fallacy that their views have a lot more support than they actually do, and so look for other villains to blame for their lack of success at the polls.
The problem is the voters themselves.
And since there is no authoritative gatekeeper of what constitutes the correct definition, it's a pointless argument. Jeb, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, etc. etc. etc. all call themselves conservatives, and there are millions of people who agree with each of them. We have to recognize that the meaning of the term varies greatly by who is using it, which is why all those oft-cited surveys that "40% of the population considers themselves conservative" are pretty worthless.
I think far too many conservatives subscribe to the fallacy that their views have a lot more support than they actually do, and so look for other villains to blame for their lack of success at the polls.
I think far too many conservatives subscribe to the fallacy that their views have a lot more support than they actually do, and so look for other villains to blame for their lack of success at the polls.
Nope. The only time Republicans win is when they serve their base. All of it. They spend so much time running away from their base, devising means to subvert them, trying to 'run up the middle' in the primaries... That's why they lose.
At least the democrats know they need their base. They serve the most liberal among them slavishly.
Would that Republicans could take a lesson from that.
No. Most voters don't participate in primaries.
Most folks aren't politically oriented. It's the politically oriented that keep foisting these unpalatable candidates upon us - and in large part, it is the game that is at fault.
Not really. Many different "flavors" of conservatism. Paleo, neo, social conservatives, etc etc.
Stupid to think your own narrow definition is universal.
Which to me is no different than what Obama said yesterday that calling Jihadists "Islamic Terrorists" smears all Muslims and is not part of our "shared values as a nation".
The 2nd part of that statement truth perfectly describes the anti-Trump faction in this forum.
They have absolutely no interest in seeing Hillary Clinton defeated...seeing as how it's down to Trump vs. Clinton.
No...their egos won't allow them.
Not even the humiliation and even latent desperation of being tossed from FR was a slap back to reality. No, they pretend it's a badge of honor..of sorts.
What they're 'saying' is....if I can't get my way, to hell with the Constitution...to hell with the Bill of Rights.
Mob rule we will accept....just so we can disrupt and carry on.
They're forum anarchists. Nothing less.
Couldn't have expressed that better myself, sir!
The 1st part of that truth became painfully apparent seeing Romney go down in defeat.
The 2nd part of that statement truth perfectly describes the anti-Trump faction in this forum.
They have absolutely no interest in seeing Hillary Clinton defeated...seeing as how it's down to Trump vs. Clinton.
No...their egos won't allow them.
Not even the humiliation and even latent desperation of being tossed from FR was a slap back to reality. No, they pretend it's a badge of honor..of sorts.
What they're 'saying' is....if I can't get my way, to hell with the Constitution...to hell with the Bill of Rights.
Mob rule we will accept....just so we can disrupt and carry on.
They're forum anarchists. Nothing less.
The problem is the voters themselves.
The 2nd part of that statement truth perfectly describes the anti-Trump faction in this forum. They have absolutely no interest in seeing Hillary Clinton defeated...seeing as how it's down to Trump vs. Clinton.
No...their egos won't allow them.
Right, in other words, your opinion. Which we all have.
Thank you for proving my point.
If the GOP base was so all powerful then it's "real conservative" candidates should have been able to cakewalk through the primaries to an easy election right?
Take these years (2000, 2008, 2012), tell me who the "true conservative" candidates were and why they didn't win?
Who was your "preferred" candidate in 2012 and how did the "establishment" screw him?
It's sad how so many "conservatives" believe such fallacious nonsense, spoon fed to them like infants by their talk radio Gods.
Nope. Take the Christians. Go lurk on a Christian board. Politics hardly even enters the frame. They are unconcerned, if not uninformed. Politics ain't their bag. Jesus is. The same with the other factions. They're busy, and uninterested. That's why only a tenth ever vote in the primaries.
The Christian Right alone, if you can turn it out, is 60M+ voters (actually, I believe way more than that) - nearly a full third of all voters. Maybe you should support a candidate that is attractive to them. When is the last time the Christians were courted? I'll tell you: Dubya's first term.
So, let me see if I understand this: there is not definitive definition of "conservative", instead we each define it according to our own thoughts and desires.
So, we're not really speaking TO each other when we talk conservatism; we're speaking past each other since conservatism is unique to each person.
Is that right?
Your product keeps losing. Maybe you should look at what you're selling.
So, let me see if I understand this: there is not definitive definition of "conservative", instead we each define it according to our own thoughts and desires.
So, we're not really speaking TO each other when we talk conservatism; we're speaking past each other since conservatism is unique to each person.
Is that right?
You mean like Keyes, Tancredo, etc etc.? Oh right, there's always some nefarious conspiracy to keep them down. It couldn't be that voters don't want what they're selling! Not at all!
Uh, right. That's why Jeb, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Paul, etc. etc. etc. all called themselves "conservatives". Whether that is a misuse of the label or not, that is in fact how the label is actually used.
And that's why a nation in which 40% of voters self-identify as "conservative" repeatedly nominates candidates whom many believe are not conservative -- at least, according to the critics' definition. Do you really think everyone actually means the same thing when they say "conservative"?
I think it's pointless and irritating to use the word if you don't ascribe to a generally-accepted definition of it.
So, we're not really speaking TO each other when we talk conservatism; we're speaking past each other since conservatism is unique to each person.
Is that right?
And yet another example how we allow liberals to control the conversation by controlling the terms.
And yet another example how we allow liberals to control the conversation by controlling the terms.
Then it looks like you answered your own question:
The term is useful if we use it with the understanding that it is a very broad umbrella that includes a lot of different opinions. It's useful as a relative term compared to progressivism, but the point is that we should be very conscious when using it that it doesn't always mean the same thing to each of us.
So either the Christian conservatives won't show up even when someone does court them (Bush 2000), or you are vastly overestimating their numbers.
Could you explain this?
And yet another example how we allow liberals to control the conversation by controlling the terms.
But it's not the liberals doing it. It's people who tend to lean Republican/right doing it to ourselves. You've got one group (that includes you) who insists that if you're not a Christian/social conservative, you're not a conservative. Others who insist that conservatism must include free trade, others who say it must include a strong defense, or secure borders....and it goes on and on. You can see it in this very thread, with some posters trying to define it for everyone else.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, it's not the left doing this.
Or you are vastly underestimating their numbers - Christians are notable for big families - and there should, within the time frame, be enough time for another whole generation to hit the field (why I said up-thread that I think their numbers are undervalued)... Certainly so between W1 and Romney. They are *not* voting for you.
Maybe you should support a candidate that is attractive to them. When is the last time the Christians were courted? I'll tell you: Dubya's first term.
Nearly everyone I know used to be Republicans. Now I know very few. But by and large, my circle is hard core Christian. Most of them vote like I do, or sit it out.
This whole discussion regarding the definition of Conservatism has truly illustrated that we are no longer a movement, a people or a nation with any rudder or anchor.
We are adrift in a sea of moral and political relativism.
At some point, the ship is going to capsize and take everyone on board down with it.
Fact of history and human nature.
But it's not the liberals doing it. It's people who tend to lean Republican/right doing it to ourselves. You've got one group (that includes you) who insists that if you're not a Christian/social conservative, you're not a conservative. Others who insist that conservatism must include free trade, others who say it must include a strong defense, or secure borders....and it goes on and on. You can see it in this very thread, with some posters trying to define it for everyone else.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, it's not the left doing this.
Isn't it? It's all relative, correct?
This whole discussion regarding the definition of Conservatism has truly illustrated that we are no longer a movement, a people or a nation with any rudder or anchor.
We are adrift in a sea of moral and political relativism.
At some point, the ship is going to capsize and take everyone on board down with it.
Fact of history and human nature.
What do you call someone who is socially conservative, but who also supports a more activist "generous" government?
I personally don't believe in either moral or political relativism. I think a moral grounding, generally religious is essential. That's what I personally believe, and it is my own personal grounding as well. A fair number of our Framers were essentially Deists, and they did fine.
But I don't think our political leaders should push particular religious views, although I do support them advocating morality, whether based in religion or not. So, I couldn't care less if a politician is a Baptist or a Mormon -- I do care about the moral beliefs that may flow from their religious beliefs, though, and if those are consistent with I believe to be good moral teachings, that's as far as my inquiry goes.
I am continually fascinated by those who somehow find an need to prove they are "conservatives," as if it is vital.
I am continually fascinated by those who somehow find an need to prove they are "conservatives," as if it is vital.
But that alone is not enough, for they go on to debate endlessly the precise definition of conservatives, almost always clinging to the idea they alone are in the "correct" grouping.
It seems to not cross their minds, that they need votes from folks that don't entirely agree with them on everything, and by being so rigid, they drive away the very supporters they need to win.
I think Ronald Reagan could explain this, and did. It is part of a logic/math situation, which I mention from time to time.
No, everything isn't relative. But the meaning of a political term can and often does shift over time. "Conservatism" is a concept.
I'd point out that you yourself have used the term "conservative" with a modifying word -- "social conservatives". What do you call someone who is socially conservative, but who also supports a more activist "generous" government? Or what do you call someone who is conservative in all respects except religious belief. What are they?
Great. So then "conservatives" are really only 10-15 percent of the electorate, and a minority within the GOP , which explains why we don't nominate candidates who fit your definition of "conservative."
A BLT is sandwich with Bacon Lettuce and Tomato. Is it still a BLT if it has only lettuce and tomato? Would a vegetarian go to a restaurant and order a BLT and expect it to come with no bacon?
A liberal.
I used the term socon for the sake of this discussion. I never said anything about having to be a Christian. There is a need for at a minimum a belief in a Creator. Otherwise, as I said, DofI and COTUS are just words on paper, and we can all call Bill and have a discussion of what "is" means.
The other examples you described may all fall in with being a Republican, but they aren't what the historical meaning of conservative is. As I asked before, why not call themselves neoliberals?
"Conservatism" is a term that embodies the principles that established us as a society and nation; the principles of the Revolution. The principles of the Framing. That includes everything from fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and morality as rooted in the scriptures and accepted by the Judeo-Christian culture that at one time the people of this nations stood upon as the common foundation for everything that flowed from that.
It seems to not cross their minds, that they need votes from folks that don't entirely agree with them on everything, and by being so rigid, they drive away the very supporters they need to win.
It's a word. And as such has a meaning. Indeed, why do some feel the need to label themselves as such if that's not what they are? Is there no other word that has historically encompassed everyone we are talking about, not just the traditional conservatives, but every other "what if" that is described here? Isn't Republican that word?
Says you. I'm not saying that to be rude, simply pointing out that someone else can take a contrary view of the definition and there is no higher authority to play arbiter. So we end up with nothing but semantisicm.
Not to be rude either, but the US Constitution concludes with a reference to "Our Lord".
But it's not the liberals doing it. It's people who tend to lean Republican/right doing it to ourselves. You've got one group (that includes you) who insists that if you're not a Christian/social conservative, you're not a conservative. Others who insist that conservatism must include free trade, others who say it must include a strong defense, or secure borders....and it goes on and on. You can see it in this very thread, with some posters trying to define it for everyone else.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, it's not the left doing this.
I am continually fascinated by those who somehow find an need to prove they are "conservatives," as if it is vital.
But that alone is not enough, for they go on to debate endlessly the precise definition of conservatives, almost always clinging to the idea they alone are in the "correct" grouping.
It seems to not cross their minds, that they need votes from folks that don't entirely agree with them on everything, and by being so rigid, they drive away the very supporters they need to win.
I think Ronald Reagan could explain this, and did. It is part of a logic/math situation, which I mention from time to time.
No, Republican is a terrible word for that. It's a political party, so you can be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-Obamacare, whatever, and still call yourself -- with 100% complete accuracy -- a "Republican".
Now me personally, I think there's nothing wrong with one person referring to themselves as a "Social Conservative" and another as a "Libertarian conservative". Both are descriptive. But apparently, that's not acceptable, and the only correct definition of "conservative" is "social conservative".
You can push for that if you'd like, but that's not how everyone else uses the term, so you're bound to be disappointed.
It's people who tend to lean Republican/right doing it to ourselves?? Wow. Damn the Constitution!! Those that honor and adhere to the traditional principles and values upon which this country was founded and the Constitution I consider conservative. Those that deviate or move away from the Constitution in order to fulfill their own agenda quite often in the name of political correctness I consider liberal.
But hey, let's not blame the left for anything, who cares if they dismantle the Constitution right?
Not to be rude either, but the US Constitution concludes with a reference to "Our Lord".
What in the name of Dread Cthluhu are you talking about? I'm talking about the definition of the word "conservative" -- it's a semantic argument. I'm not talking about the substance of the Constitution, unless you can tell me that the Constitution expressly defined the word "conservative" somewhere in Article 8.
If you actually go back and read my post, you will see I very clearly stated my DEFINITION OF CONSERVATISM. No. It isn't a semantic argument.
If you can point me to The Lord's Edition of Webster's, I'd appreciate it. I wasn't aware that the Almighty concerned himself with political definitions.
Where in the conclusion of the United States Constitution does it reference "Our Lord"?
I think he's referring to "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven"
There are libertarians who definitely have two legs of the stool, but the moral/cultural conservatism that our country was founded on is missing. In those areas, they are more aligned with liberals than with conservatives.
Social conservatism, as PART of overall conservatism, is imperative, IMO.
That's his proof? Hahahahaha!
A libertarian can believe very strongly in moral/cultural conservatism. They just won't believe that is something that the government should enforce. I'm not a Libertarian myself, but the concept of moral/cultural conservatism is not incompatible with libertarianism.
Well, it may be. But I can say that I sowed a few wild oats in my younger days, so I probably wasn't as "morally conservative" as some might deem acceptable. And I can laugh at South Park, so I'm probably not "culturally conservative" either.
Guess that means I should vote for Bernie or something....
(https://tamaratattles.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/church-lady-satan.jpg?w=500)
No, it is. By it's very defintion it is. You don't get it.
If you can point me to The Lord's Edition of Webster's, I'd appreciate it. I wasn't aware that the Almighty concerned himself with political definitions.
Says you. I'm not saying that to be rude, simply pointing out that someone else can take a contrary view of the definition and there is no higher authority to play arbiter. So we end up with nothing but semantisicm.
No actually, you don't get it. You will eventually.
See above post: End of Article VII.
Oh. Well, that's OK then.
Uncle! I give up! Whatever Maj. Bill says I now agree to! No more, please!
It's people who tend to lean Republican/right doing it to ourselves?? Wow. Damn the Constitution!! Those that honor and adhere to the traditional principles and values upon which this country was founded and the Constitution I consider conservative. Those that deviate or move away from the Constitution in order to fulfill their own agenda quite often in the name of political correctness I consider liberal.
Where in the conclusion of the United States Constitution does it reference "Our Lord"?
That's his proof? Hahahahaha!
Last I checked, he didn't so much define words as speak in parables as well as speaking through acts of God. You can find the nearest equivalent to what you asked for at this link. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/)
This, and others of a very similar nature, were the reference books the founders used when setting up the nation.
That the Constitution would contain an acknowledgement of "Our Lord" is funny? Why is that funny?
It also specifies that the President does not have to work on Sundays.
Is that also funny?
If there is no higher authority to play arbiter, unscrupulous vain, ambitious and jealous men will become that highest authority.
And tyrants will rule.
I immediately dismiss the 'thoughts' of someone who posts a dopey picture of Church Lady as someone who doesn't believe his arguments can stand on their own without derision of those who disagree.
I was trying to have a civil conversation, but I guess you don't wanna.......... **nononono*
:beer: :silly: :silly: Yes, maintain your sanity.
I feel like sticking a fork in my eye and then pouring in salt....
Look, I'm talking about the argument over the definition of the word "conservative". I'm not talking about what policies are best, or what we should or should not do as a country. And I'm saying that there is no accepted higher authority or arbiter regarding the meaning of the word "conservative."
So people arguing among themselves about who is and who is not entitled to call themselves a "conservative" is pointless, because there is no concrete definition anointed by God, and people are going to continue to use their definitions anyway. So it is a pointless exercise, as these last few pages demonstrate.
I agree, but why do you suppose that is? I can come up with two hypothesis, but I'm sure there are more:
1) It doesn't cross their mind because they have false understanding of the popularity of their views. They don't see the need to build alliances or coalitions because they believe they are the "Silent Majority" (or some such) and someone need only intone the correct words for that majority to stand up and be counted.
2) it does cross their minds, but they'd take greater joy in being absolute right and losing, than in being 80% right and winning. In short, winning control of the government just isn't that important to them.
I do. Here's the issue:
There are not only different aspects to conservatism, but how strictly each aspect is interpreted. So sure, conservatism includes a belief in a limited role for government, but exactly how limited? That's tougher. And at what point do we draw the line as to when you've crossed the line into extreme libertarianism/anarchy on one end, or full-on nanny state at the other? I don't know, but that also complicates the definitional issue.
That gets particularly dicey when it gets to "cultural/moral" issues. Who, exactly, is the arbiter of when personal morality crosses the line into no longer being "conservative"? Is pre-marital sex the line? Does watching South Park mean you are not a social conservative, and therefore not a conservative at all?
That's the problem I have in particular with the argument that you cannot be a conservative unless you are a social conservative. Because that raises the stereotype of the Church Lady conservative who allegedly wants to tell other people how to lead their lives. And I don't think that's actually "conservative" at all. Where I see "social conservatism" being legitimately part of a political philosophy (as opposed to a personal philosophy) is when the discussion is about things that necessarily involve the state -- do we recognize gay marriage, or no? Or to go further, back to the days of Bowers v Hardwick and the outlawing of consensual sodomy, is supporting that a prerequisite for being a "conservative" as well?
So that's the issue I see -- conservativism as a political philosophy should be defined with reference to politics, and to those things that are necessarily in the public sphere. But defining whether or not someone truly espouses a political philosophy by referencing their personal morality or cultural preferences that are not part of the function of government seems to me to be going beyond a reasonable definition of "conservative".
But, like I said earlier, there's no higher authority to define the word and control its use, so people will use it however they want.
"Year of our lord" is clearly a colloquialism, nothing more.
What people are talking about here is not some arbitrary theocracy run by the Southern Baptist Church, but rather a social structure than honors the moral founding of this country.
When God and the Judeo-Christian religion is no longer considered the highest authority - all you have is what the authority of men decide.
Men will decide if you have a right to defend yourself or not. Men will decide if you are allowed to make a living or not.
Which is why I say, if a people will not be governed by God, they will be ruled by the tyrants and tyranny of men.
So here we sit, arguing about and against the very principles that established us because they are offensive to most of the population today that no longer consider God, and the biblical religions to have any authority or validity beyond one's own closet.
Because if we have no higher authority from whence our Rights and Freedoms originate, we have no right to complain about where this nation now sits, or complain and worry about the loss of liberty, and the abolishment of freedom as we once understood it. Because we no longer agree on what the definition of liberty is, much less Conservatism. So the rulings of men will decide.
Liberty and freedom will be whatever the whims of men say they are.
Which is why we now have laws allowing perverts to use women's bathrooms and private businesses must bake cakes for homosexual unions.
Tomorrow freedom and liberty will defined as limiting where you can live and how much wealth you are permitted.
If there is no higher authority to play arbiter, unscrupulous vain, ambitious and jealous men will become that highest authority.
And tyrants will rule.
And you have no recourse except to submit - because the mob has decided that what you see as tyranny, is for the larger good of those persons and agendas they serve.
No, Republican is a terrible word for that. It's a political party, so you can be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-Obamacare, whatever, and still call yourself -- with 100% complete accuracy -- a "Republican".
Now me personally, I think there's nothing wrong with one person referring to themselves as a "Social Conservative" and another as a "Libertarian conservative". Both are descriptive. But apparently, that's not acceptable, and the only correct definition of "conservative" is "social conservative".
You can push for that if you'd like, but that's not how everyone else uses the term, so you're bound to be disappointed.
Which was Abraham Lincoln? A Conservative who adheres "to the traditional principles and values upon which this country was founded" or a Liberal "that deviate or move away from the Constitution in order to fulfill their own agenda quite often in the name of political correctness."?
You know what, you guys are right. I think I made a wrong turn ending up here.
Because if you're not a rock-ribbed conservative then you're a dirty filthy hippie commie homosexual pervert!!!!! It's either or, no in between!!!
However, his campaign positions are solidly conservative.
However, [Trump's] campaign positions are solidly conservative.
The fact is, that society was filled with "religious nuts" by modern standards.
Morals and values change over time. It just happens. At one point you'd be jailed if as a woman you showed your ankle. Because while we do need a strong moral foundation (like murder is wrong) not all values are equal.
That gets particularly dicey when it gets to "cultural/moral" issues. Who, exactly, is the arbiter of when personal morality crosses the line into no longer being "conservative"? Is pre-marital sex the line? Does watching South Park mean you are not a social conservative, and therefore not a conservative at all?
Because that raises the stereotype of the Church Lady conservative who allegedly wants to tell other people how to lead their lives.
So that's the issue I see -- conservativism as a political philosophy should be defined with reference to politics, and to those things that are necessarily in the public sphere. But defining whether or not someone truly espouses a political philosophy by referencing their personal morality or cultural preferences that are not part of the function of government seems to me to be going beyond a reasonable definition of "conservative".
Campaign promises. Tell me, with what do you secure those promises?
Women had more freedom and "rights" in the Plymouth Colony than they did back in England at the same time. In the Plymouth Colony a woman could be a property owner, a business owner, had standing in court, the ordinary woman had none of this in England. A widow was guaranteed a good portion of the estate if the husband passed on, he could not will it all to his kids and leave her broke. A widow could challenge the will in court and would win.
I looked into his history. When Donald Trump says he's doing something, building something, it gets done. He has a good reputation in the banking, business and real estate communities in that regard.
His long track record is public record and easily searchable.
Have you ever considered the fact that that was because the Plymouth Colony was founded by "religious nuts" who followed God's laws, and England was not? Respect for women is right up there in the New Testament, and that's what they were relying on for wisdom.
I looked into his history. When Donald Trump says he's doing something, building something, it gets done.
He has a good reputation in the banking, business and real estate communities in that regard.
His long track record is public record and easily searchable.
These religious nuts allowed women to own taverns! (called "public houses") (at least 2 known in records) They even allowed women to drink in public! There even a court report of a woman and a man getting fined for public drunkeness.
Oh for shame. :p
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. “
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775
“Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.”
John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776
"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters. "
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775
Morals and values change over time. It just happens. At one point you'd be jailed if as a woman you showed your ankle. Because while we do need a strong moral foundation (like murder is wrong) not all values are equal.
Yep.
Heck, at one point it was found morally right to torture Jews, confiscate their property, and then burn them alive in a spectacle for the people (auto-de-fe). The Catholic church even found it so godlike they even ran the process.
It was called the Spanish Inquisition.
Not to be rude either, but the US Constitution concludes with a reference to "Our Lord".
I find proof our founders expected rigid Christianity alone, to be unproved.
And they used the same term for members of the upper house of the British parliament, I seem to recall.
And it is often stated that some of our founders were Deists, which is understandable given the religious history of the preceding 200 years, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Therefore, I find proof our founders expected rigid Christianity alone, to be unproved.
Yep.
Heck, at one point it was found morally right to torture Jews, confiscate their property, and then burn them alive in a spectacle for the people (auto-de-fe). The Catholic church even found it so godlike they even ran the process.
It was called the Spanish Inquisition.
The Spanish Inquisition is often cited in popular literature and history as an example of Catholic intolerance and repression. Modern historians have tended to question earlier and wildly exaggerated accounts concerning the severity of the Inquisition. Henry Kamen asserts that the 'myth' of the all-powerful, torture-mad inquisition is largely an invention of nineteenth century Protestant authors with an agenda to discredit the Papacy.[2]
....The Spanish Inquisition can be seen as an answer to the multi-religious nature of Spanish society following the reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslim Moors. After invading in 711, large areas of the Iberian Peninsula were ruled by Muslims until 1250, when they were restricted to Granada, which fell in 1492. However, the Reconquista did not result in the total expulsion of Muslims from Spain, since they, along with Jews, were tolerated by the ruling Christian elite. Large cities, especially Seville, Valladolid and Barcelona, had significant Jewish populations centered in Juderia, but in the coming years the Muslims were increasingly subjugated by alienation and torture. The Jews, who had previously thrived under Muslim rule, now suffered similar maltreatment....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
And folks wonder why it seems at every turn another right is being regulated, taxed, abolished or ignored. People wonder why the Constitution is abrogated. People wonder how we ended up with two vulgar and despicable human beings at the top of their parties for the highest office in the land.
The root cause of everything is the one thing a majority either do not want any exposure to, or are indifferent to.
So I hope everyone who despises even reading the notion of morality and Christianity in society, enjoys the current culture and the further coming loss of your rights and liberties.
It's the kind of society you have when "rigid Christianity" no longer exists to influence the culture in any way shape or form.
This people worked hard to rid itself of the influence of the bible on the culture. Even here, the often knee-jerk revulsion to the mention of biblical morality in the discussion of rights and liberties is very revealing.
You won't have your rights or the liberties you once knew for much longer.
Everything you see now and in the near future are the fruits this people have richly earned for themselves and their posterity.
From Obama to Transgendered bathrooms to BLM and the war on cops, Jihadist Islam and all the woes and miseries we see in the news each day. All comes down to the root cause that everyone pretends never existed and shouldn't exist.
America in decline is a perfect reflection of the character of the nation as it dives towards Gommorah as it surpasses Sodom.
Such a people cannot maintain liberty or freedom, indeed it will eschew it from themselves and embrace that which every other despotic top-down government on earth provides their subjects.
Such a people cannot maintain liberty or freedom, indeed it will eschew it from themselves and embrace that which every other despotic top-down government on earth provides their subjects.
Anyone besides me notice that the very same people on this thread who want conservatism to be a nebulous formless undefined 'for everyone' kinda thing are the very same people that make excuses for people like Trump and Romney? That argue to this day for lesser evil voting?
Anyone that can point to one here that hasn't?
How very odd. Wait...I misspelled 'odd' "PREDICTABLE is not spelled with an 'O'.
To what end? To makes themselves feel better? To feel like they're one of the cool kids? I just don't understand it. Why care so much about being called a conservative?
For some, To ensure actual conservatism and actual conservatives waste all their time fighting them instead of getting our collective poop together.
For others, they think at the grade school level and big ideas hurt their heads.
All these arguements about 'open conservatism that is whatever you want it to be" is the exact same arguement as
"Everyone has their own truth"
That is 100% a liberal idea. Conservatives do not embrace liberal ideas. Liberal ideas are by definition what Conservatism and conservatives fight against.
This thread has already seen the open conservative crowd engage in an orgy of circular logic with the occasional turnoff into flat out lying about stated positions. It is no different than the psuedocons on FR who did the same thing and some of them are in fact the same people.
We see how that turned out.
But ultimately, they will throw themselves on the floor and scream for the candybar no matter what logic, history or reason we give them. Because thats what liberals do. Disrupt conservatives, rewrite history and mock you for not embracing 'their truth'.
I'm #2 above. :P
You seem fine with big ideas to me.
I think it is a mistake to gage the size of a voting block nationally based on one's own circle of acquaintances. I think your number is very high, at least if you're talking about Christian conservatives who also have conservative political views. Either that, or they don't -- and haven't ever -- really shown up in force at the polls.
I use a random sentence generator to make most of my comments. :)
And folks wonder why it seems at every turn another right is being regulated, taxed, abolished or ignored. People wonder why the Constitution is abrogated. People wonder how we ended up with two vulgar and despicable human beings at the top of their parties for the highest office in the land.
The root cause of everything is the one thing a majority either do not want any exposure to, or are indifferent to.
So I hope everyone who despises even reading the notion of morality and Christianity in society, enjoys the current culture and the further coming loss of your rights and liberties.
It's the kind of society you have when "rigid Christianity" no longer exists to influence the culture in any way shape or form.
This people worked hard to rid itself of the influence of the bible on the culture. Even here, the often knee-jerk revulsion to the mention of biblical morality in the discussion of rights and liberties is very revealing.
You won't have your rights or the liberties you once knew for much longer.
Everything you see now and in the near future are the fruits this people have richly earned for themselves and their posterity.
From Obama to Transgendered bathrooms to BLM and the war on cops, Jihadist Islam and all the woes and miseries we see in the news each day. All comes down to the root cause that everyone pretends never existed and shouldn't exist.
America in decline is a perfect reflection of the character of the nation as it dives towards Gommorah as it surpasses Sodom.
Such a people cannot maintain liberty or freedom, indeed it will eschew it from themselves and embrace that which every other despotic top-down government on earth provides their subjects.
Such bitterness. I'm embarrassed for him. **nononono*He's right.You may want to save that embarrassment for the general election.
And folks wonder why it seems at every turn another right is being regulated, taxed, abolished or ignored. People wonder why the Constitution is abrogated. People wonder how we ended up with two vulgar and despicable human beings at the top of their parties for the highest office in the land.The founders respected the concept of God-Given, unalienable Rights. (Declaration of Independence, ...are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, among those, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...)
The root cause of everything is the one thing a majority either do not want any exposure to, or are indifferent to.
So I hope everyone who despises even reading the notion of morality and Christianity in society, enjoys the current culture and the further coming loss of your rights and liberties.
It's the kind of society you have when "rigid Christianity" no longer exists to influence the culture in any way shape or form.
This people worked hard to rid itself of the influence of the bible on the culture. Even here, the often knee-jerk revulsion to the mention of biblical morality in the discussion of rights and liberties is very revealing.
You won't have your rights or the liberties you once knew for much longer.
Everything you see now and in the near future are the fruits this people have richly earned for themselves and their posterity.
From Obama to Transgendered bathrooms to BLM and the war on cops, Jihadist Islam and all the woes and miseries we see in the news each day. All comes down to the root cause that everyone pretends never existed and shouldn't exist.
America in decline is a perfect reflection of the character of the nation as it dives towards Gommorah as it surpasses Sodom.
Such a people cannot maintain liberty or freedom, indeed it will eschew it from themselves and embrace that which every other despotic top-down government on earth provides their subjects.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JwnutqCQmbk/VOYy02k_XXI/AAAAAAAAAgM/5pr6e_OedBs/s1600/no-one-expects-the-spanish-inquisition.jpg)
The founders respected the concept of God-Given, unalienable Rights. (Declaration of Independence, ...are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, among those, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...)
When that Creator, that overwhelming and omniscient power, is removed from the equation, the Rights thus obtained are easy targets and their existence becomes hinged in the minds of those in power on the diktat of man.
I looked into his history. When Donald Trump says he's doing something, building something, it gets done. He has a good reputation in the banking, business and real estate communities in that regard.
His long track record is public record and easily searchable.
@aligncare
With all due respect, your search skills are evidently lacking. I was easily able to determine that he and his entities have a history of not paying bills, declaring bankruptcy, using litigation to delay or avoid meeting commitments, etc. Are you sure you're not being willfully ignorant?
(https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAANzAAAAJDk2MTE2Y2VkLTc1YzctNDVkOS04NjkzLWM0YmI4NzM4MzcwMQ.jpg)
He's not Hillary and that is all they need or want to know!
(https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAANzAAAAJDk2MTE2Y2VkLTc1YzctNDVkOS04NjkzLWM0YmI4NzM4MzcwMQ.jpg)
He's not Hillary and that is all they need or want to know!
More likely...
(http://www.humortimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Rush-Limbaugh-xray.jpg)
Hotlinking broken on that image. Does this work?
(https://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/103/452/452103.jpg)
"Silence the opposition!"
It's nice to see the personal insults have stopped...Mr. #NeverTrump will be proud of you all.
Hey Nancy, you know I never hit 'abuse report.' So we'll let these personal insults hang in the air and see how long it takes for management to do something. After all, with the new rules around, here this morning y'all were quick to jump on my signature line as insulting.
Let's see if evenhanded moderating is the rule or the exception that benefits #NeverTrump.
It's nice to see the rules against personal insults being strictly enforced on this forum.
It's nice to see the rules against personal insults being strictly enforced on this forum.
It's nice to see the personal insults have stopped...Mr. #NeverTrump will be proud of you all.
Hey Nancy, you know I never hit 'abuse report.' So we'll let these personal insults hang in the air and see how long it takes for management to do something. After all, with the new rules around, here this morning y'all were quick to jump on my signature line as insulting.
Let's see if evenhanded moderating is the rule or the exception that benefits #NeverTrump.
Apparently "personal attack" has an even broader definition than "conservative".
It's nice to see the personal insults have stopped...Mr. #NeverTrump will be proud of you all.
Hey Nancy, you know I never hit 'abuse report.' So we'll let these personal insults hang in the air and see how long it takes for management to do something. After all, with the new rules around, here this morning y'all were quick to jump on my signature line as insulting.
Let's see if evenhanded moderating is the rule or the exception that benefits #NeverTrump.
Maybe when your crew knocks off the "you are supporting Hillary" comments, someone might shed you a tear. Until then, you'll just have to put folks on ignore. Because we arent gonna sit here and let you rule the roost and simply take your bullshit unanswered. Since insults are the level of your communication skills, maybe you can run back to FR and bitch there. You know, since you have a habit of that anyway.
(https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAANzAAAAJDk2MTE2Y2VkLTc1YzctNDVkOS04NjkzLWM0YmI4NzM4MzcwMQ.jpg)
He's not Hillary and that is all they need or want to know!
Contrarily, the current selection is between Ma Barker and Little Bob (The Unforgiven).
888sunglass
Lincoln did save the Union, but his legacy was not at all a model of limited government. If not for the slavery issue, his Presidency would not be regarded so highly.
In fairness though, his term was preceded by a President worse than Baraq Obama.
Women had more freedom and "rights" in the Plymouth Colony than they did back in England at the same time. In the Plymouth Colony a woman could be a property owner, a business owner, had standing in court, the ordinary woman had none of this in England. A widow was guaranteed a good portion of the estate if the husband passed on, he could not will it all to his kids and leave her broke. A widow could challenge the will in court and would win.
And they used the same term for members of the upper house of the British parliament, I seem to recall.
And it is often stated that some of our founders were Deists, which is understandable given the religious history of the preceding 200 years, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Therefore, I find proof our founders expected rigid Christianity alone, to be unproved.
The founders respected the concept of God-Given, unalienable Rights. (Declaration of Independence, ...are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, among those, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...)
When that Creator, that overwhelming and omniscient power, is removed from the equation, the Rights thus obtained are easy targets and their existence becomes hinged in the minds of those in power on the diktat of man.
And they used the same term for members of the upper house of the British parliament, I seem to recall.
And it is often stated that some of our founders were Deists, which is understandable given the religious history of the preceding 200 years, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Therefore, I find proof our founders expected rigid Christianity alone, to be unproved.
I got to thinking that so many people are focusing on the words they wrote into the Constitution (such as no religious test for office) rather than understanding them in the context of the time, that I thought of another example where this same phenomena has repeatedly occurred.
The Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
If one interprets that literally, it effectively abolishes slavery in the United States.
But did it really do that? No, it didn't. Slavery continued in the Union states until the 13 amendment was passed on December 6, 1865.
That's why it is important to understanding the zeitgeist before claiming a certain meaning for written words.
Do you mean English Bob or little Bill?I stand corrected. It is Little Bill, then again the November ending may be more like Irish Bob. shot full of holes and defiantly clicking away on empty cylinders.
This encapsulates a point I am constantly trying to make. Societies founded on the ever changeable whim of man are not stable. They rot and degrade quickly. (by societal standards, but imperceptibly slow by the measure of some people's lifetime.)
China has existed as a separate cultural and legal entities for thousands of years. Neither have a single religion with immutable moral codes given by G-d. In fact, their philosophy - Confucianism - was created by a man and was never viewed as coming from a higher power.
Furthermore, their religions of Buddhism and Taoism are both viewed as creations of man, adopted because of their societal value. Buddhism, at its core, strives to negate one's 'self' and to achieve nirvana, or non-existence. And Taoism is much the same, following the path of non-action, wuwei.
Neither have a firm moral code or even a god or gods in their pantheon.
Yet China is one of the single longest surviving people and nation on earth.
China doesn't vote on moral issues and policies though.
Exactly.
If not for his being killed, he would not be regarded so highly. If not for the massive and constant propaganda from the victors justifying the war, he would not be regarded so highly.
The Republic of China does. (Taiwan)
But it applies to Japan as well. They are Shinto and Buddhist. And Shinto claims the Emperor as its head, as a living god, descended from their sun goddess, Ameterasu.
But, for the most part, the slaves were not Christians, nor even Jews, but heathen. Sold by Arab traders (Muhammedans).
I got to thinking that so many people are focusing on the words they wrote into the Constitution (such as no religious test for office) rather than understanding them in the context of the time, that I thought of another example where this same phenomena has repeatedly occurred.
The Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
If one interprets that literally, it effectively abolishes slavery in the United States.
But did it really do that? No, it didn't. Slavery continued in the Union states until the 13 amendment was passed on December 6, 1865.
That's why it is important to understanding the zeitgeist before claiming a certain meaning for written words.
But, for the most part, the slaves were not Christians, nor even Jews, but heathen. Sold by Arab traders (Muhammedans).
All sorts of things could be justified when it came to dealing with the 'godless heathen', and were for some time afterward, because they were often regarded as less than human.
Then entire colonial (European) mindset was predicated on 'civilizing' the lesser peoples of the planet, and the advent of Darwinism only contributed to that, bolstering the idea that some people were more developed and thus more advanced humans than others. The Christian and Jewish religions were seen as indicators of that advancement and anyone else was fair game.
Darwinism made the racism inherent in the European culture socially and academically acceptable and did significant damage to the Christian movement/Awakening that desired the abolition of slavery.
Christianity is still the prime mover in eliminating the rampant world wide slavery that exists today.
Has Buddhism changed its core beliefs? I don't keep up with Japanese society. Is it in the same social despair we are since they no longer have a true emperor?
When Buddhism entered China, it incorporated a ton of Taoist concepts familar to the Chinese. And when it entered Japan, Buddhism integrated with Shintoism to the point where there were joint Buddhist/Shinto temples. Even today, most Buddhist temples in Japan have a torii gate to show there is a Shinto shrine somewhere on the premises.
Additionally, the foundational mythology of Shintoism came from the first commissioned Imperial histories of Japan (the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki). This was done at the behest of the early Japanese ruler, who wanted some sort of record to prove that he was equal in stature to the Chinese emperors of the time, and the chronicles even state so. (It basically documented the animist myths handed down from prehistoric Japan.)
To me, there isn't anything more human derived than a government commissioned historical chronicle.
Furthermore, Confucianism and Taoism both underwent substantial revisions over time, with neo-Confucianism kicking off in the Tang and Song dynasties of China and becoming *THE* foundation for Korea for at least the last 500 years. Neo-Confucianism created the entire supernatural element (ie - heaven) for this philosophy, turning it into a quasi-religion.
And that Confucian heaven was explicitly modeled after the Chinese government of the time. There was a Celestial Emperor and a Celestial Bureaucracy. Gods were appointed via examination to care for the towns/villages/provinces assigned. And if the gods failed, they were deposed. Sometimes humans were competed in the process, with stories of some humans becoming local gods protecting their territory and people.
Taoism incorporated that wholesale as well.
And back to Shintoism/Buddhism... by the Warring States period, the two were very blurred. Heck, Buddhism had even usurped from Shintoism the 'magic' rituals to create rain at the behest of the Emperor. It was only afterwards, in the Tokugawa shogunate and even moreso in the Meji Restoration, did Shintoism separate itself from Buddhism.
China has existed as a separate cultural and legal entities for thousands of years. Neither have a single religion with immutable moral codes given by G-d. In fact, their philosophy - Confucianism - was created by a man and was never viewed as coming from a higher power.
Furthermore, their religions of Buddhism and Taoism are both viewed as creations of man, adopted because of their societal value. Buddhism, at its core, strives to negate one's 'self' and to achieve nirvana, or non-existence. And Taoism is much the same, following the path of non-action, wuwei.
Neither have a firm moral code or even a god or gods in their pantheon.
Yet China is one of the single longest surviving people and nation on earth.
The intent of those words were to establish the justification for the end of slavery, considering that the Colonists considered themselves slaves of the Crown.
The Republic of China does. (Taiwan)
But it applies to Japan as well. They are Shinto and Buddhist. And Shinto claims the Emperor as its head, as a living god, descended from their sun goddess, Ameterasu.
But, for the most part, the slaves were not Christians, nor even Jews, but heathen. Sold by Arab traders (Muhammedans).
All sorts of things could be justified when it came to dealing with the 'godless heathen', and were for some time afterward, because they were often regarded as less than human.
Then entire colonial (European) mindset was predicated on 'civilizing' the lesser peoples of the planet, and the advent of Darwinism only contributed to that, bolstering the idea that some people were more developed and thus more advanced humans than others. The Christian and Jewish religions were seen as indicators of that advancement and anyone else was fair game.
Darwinism made the racism inherent in the European culture socially and academically acceptable and did significant damage to the Christian movement/Awakening that desired the abolition of slavery.
Christianity is still the prime mover in eliminating the rampant world wide slavery that exists today.
Very much so. Slavery is consistent with the Muslim religion. It is contradictory to the Christian one.
The people who captured and sold others into slavery were not Christians! To a very large extent they were Muslims! And Muslims are the VAST majority of today's slave holders.
The VERY first slave owner in what eventually became the USA was a black man by the name of Anthony Johnson of Virginia!
And China remained effectively stagnant for four thousand years.
And... that's a lie.
Sure it is. That's why a tiny little Island off the coast of Europe brought the several thousand year old Empire of China to it's knees.
As long as we're on preambles, here is the preamble to Alabama's state constitution:We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure to ourselves and to our posterity life, liberty, and property; profoundly grateful to Almighty God for this inestimable right, and invoking His favor and guidance, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:
California:We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
II.—It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great creator and preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
III.—As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
Oh, I see. You think all history occurred in the last 200 years.
For it wasn't until the late 1700s that things started to go sour in China vis that tiny island.
But, since you know so much, tell us who ruled China at the time?
(Hint: they weren't Chinese)
No, I think in that last 200 years, the society based on Christianity leapfrogged in power well beyond that of a 4,000 year old society based on another philosophy.
One would think they were sour already, else a tiny Island would never have become such a threat.
Without looking, I would have to say the Mongols. I know they ruled China for quite awhile.
But the point is not so much about Chinese history as it is about their lack of progress as a society.
I doubt that the peasant of 1800 lived much differently from the peasant of 2,000 BC.
Fundamental foundational principles can have a profound long term effect on the direction a society takes.
And... that's a lie.
...
John, why would you go straight to "you're lying". Couldn't it just be a disagreement? Maybe you have information that DR doesn't and Vice versa
The people who captured and sold others into slavery were not Christians! To a very large extent they were Muslims! And Muslims are the VAST majority of today's slave holders.All true. Now, would someone explain to me why blacks convert to Islam?
The VERY first slave owner in what eventually became the USA was a black man by the name of Anthony Johnson of Virginia!
The issue was an issue, but not resolved. The several states were left to their own decisions regarding slavery.
So you are arguing that they could understand the concept as it applied to themselves, but they were completely baffled at the idea of applying it to their own slaves?
I don't think this theory explains the facts very well.
To say that the most economically powerful, most scientifically advanced, best administered civilization on earth for 3800 out of the last 4000 years is a stagnant civilization *IS* a lie.
It's very difficult for me to understand how an educated person could not even remember who invented paper or gunpowder (or dismiss those inventions as so useless as to be of no note). And completely dismiss the reason why Marco Polo travelled the Silk Road.
Just *that* alone immediately refutes the claim made.
So, you've shut down any chance of discussion and created unnecessary dissent. I find it hard to believe that was your intent. But, what do I know?
May I suggest we all take a step back for a second. @HonestJohn , I appreciate your knowledge on the subject. It is clearly something you have studied. I think the problem is your comment about @DiogenesLamp being a liar was on the harsh side. If the info that DL presented was incorrect then you are right to try to correct him. If he is incorrect I'm sure he would appreciate the info, as he seems to have some interest in the subject as well. "Lying" implies that one is being incorrect on purpose or with ulterior motive and I doubt that was case.
Steven Colbert on Trump:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh_GFkdxwbQ&feature=youtu.be
He's pretty much right on the mark.
Good stuff!They are just getting warmed up. We ain't seen nothin' yet.
He's right.You may want to save that embarrassment for the general election.
QuoteTHE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE
Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of
the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
...
The second section of the first article states:
Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
I thought I'd give this great thread a bump...in light of everything that is now surrounding the 'Donald' and his insane prompting of Putin to ' look into' Hillary's e-mails, no truer words have been spoken by Cruz:
"Those who bolstered Trump WILL bear that responsibility going forward" .... :patriot: :patriot:
Yep. I will accept none of the blame for this freak show.
To me it looks more like a circus with Trump as the clown and Hillary as the snake charmer.
#NeverTrump
Focus on the Congress instead.
The framers chose it wisely to be the true power in this country. The selection of an Executive is a sideshow only, as Congress acting as per Constitution can control anyone who is President.
With an 'ideal' Congress they should be able to reign in a president Constitutionally; yet we have seen this administration side step Congress
We have seen this Congress do nothing while the President abuses his Constitutional authority.
Congress holds ultimate power over both the Executive and Judicial branches. Congress has the power of the purse, meaning that it can cut off funding for anything the President wants to do. And Congress has the power to establish and disestablish courts (except for the Supreme Court), meaning that it can dissolve any court that issues rulings that conflict with the Constitution.
These are great powers which is why our Founding Fathers diluted them amongst a group of geographic legislators representing the diverse will of the people and a second group of legislators representing the will of the States. But those powers exist nonetheless. Obama has been able to get away with so much because he recognizes that the Republican Party is made up of cowards who will gladly sacrifice our Constitutional liberties in order to maintain their spot at the receiving table.
Focus on the Congress instead.
The framers chose it wisely to be the true power in this country. The selection of an Executive is a sideshow only, as Congress acting as per Constitution can control anyone who is President.
We have seen this Congress do nothing while the President abuses his Constitutional authority.
Congress holds ultimate power over both the Executive and Judicial branches. Congress has the power of the purse, meaning that it can cut off funding for anything the President wants to do. And Congress has the power to establish and disestablish courts (except for the Supreme Court), meaning that it can dissolve any court that issues rulings that conflict with the Constitution.
These are great powers which is why our Founding Fathers diluted them amongst a group of geographic legislators representing the diverse will of the people and a second group of legislators representing the will of the States. But those powers exist nonetheless. Obama has been able to get away with so much because he recognizes that the Republican Party is made up of cowards who will gladly sacrifice our Constitutional liberties in order to maintain their spot at the receiving table.
To bad they have refused to use the powers granted them for a VERY long time now!
Focus on the Congress instead.
The framers chose it wisely to be the true power in this country. The selection of an Executive is a sideshow only, as Congress acting as per Constitution can control anyone who is President.
But that's life in Chris Christie's NJ. Looking back I am reminded that CC refused to donate any cash to Cuccinelli of VA, allowing McAuliff to win that election. I will request an absentee ballot and write in Ted Cruz for President.
To me it looks more like a circus with Trump as the clown and Hillary as the snake charmer.There is nothing charming about either of them.
#NeverTrump
[/size]
"Those who bolstered Trump WILL bear that responsibility going forward" .... :patriot: :patriot:
There is nothing charming about either of them.
Focus on the Congress instead.
The framers chose it wisely to be the true power in this country. The selection of an Executive is a sideshow only, as Congress acting as per Constitution can control anyone who is President.
the GOP was pathetically unable to distinguish themselves from the jackasses.
and then the GOP nominated the biggest one ever.
And when he loses, the GOPe will immediately blame conservatives for nominating the idiot.
I used to think the hope of our republic lay in Congress....but that was before we elected a GOP congress. Even worse, with GOP congress and president - the GOP was pathetically unable to distinguish themselves from the jackasses.
And when he loses, the GOPe will immediately blame conservatives for nominating the idiot.
IF he loses....it means the Republican Party is indeed, in the dustbin of history. For no other Republican named Cruz, or otherwise would be able to 'combat' the leftward media complex against Hillary Clinton.
Trump is Obiwan Kanobe....he's our ONLY hope. (To slow the advance toward a dissolution of our Constitutional Republic)
***suicide*** **nononono*
I'm not speaking about policy, etc..
Speaking about drawing vote power only.
Like it or not, Earl, it's the semi-finals of 'American-Idol'.
And you have to choose between the two....if you ever believed in the concept and power of a single vote.
I'm not speaking about policy, etc..
Speaking about drawing vote power only.
Like it or not, Earl, it's the semi-finals of 'American-Idol'.
And you have to choose between the two....if you ever believed in the concept and power of a single vote.
I'm not speaking about policy, etc..
Speaking about drawing vote power only.
Like it or not, Earl, it's the semi-finals of 'American-Idol'.
And you have to choose between the two....if you ever believed in the concept and power of a single vote.
I'm not speaking about policy, etc..
Speaking about drawing vote power only.
Like it or not, Earl, it's the semi-finals of 'American-Idol'.
Focus on the Congress instead.
Like it or not, Earl, it's the semi-finals of 'American-Idol'.
And you have to choose between the two....if you ever believed in the concept and power of a single vote.
The essence of demagoguery is the idea that the truth of a statement is determined entirely by the size of the following it attracts.
IF he loses....it means the Republican Party is indeed, in the dustbin of history. For no other Republican named Cruz, or otherwise would be able to 'combat' the leftward media complex against Hillary Clinton.This is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read and at the same time the most untrue. Trump is P.T. Barnum.
Trump is Obiwan Kanobe....he's our ONLY hope. (To slow the advance toward a dissolution of our Constitutional Republic)
This is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read and at the same time the most untrue. Trump is P.T. Barnum.
Can anyone picture Cruz doing any of these things?
Trump's last 24 hours:
-Attacked dead soldier's family
-Trashed 4-star general
-Lied about NFL & Koch Bros.
-Accused fire marshal of bias
Can anyone picture Cruz doing any of these things?
Trump's last 24 hours:
-Attacked dead soldier's family
-Trashed 4-star general
-Lied about NFL & Koch Bros.
-Accused fire marshal of bias
Can anyone picture Cruz doing any of these things?
Trump's last 24 hours:
-Attacked dead soldier's family
-Trashed 4-star general
-Lied about NFL & Koch Bros.
-Accused fire marshal of bias
IF he loses....it means the Republican Party is indeed, in the dustbin of history. For no other Republican named Cruz, or otherwise would be able to 'combat' the leftward media complex against Hillary Clinton.
Trump is Obiwan Kanobe....he's our ONLY hope. (To slow the advance toward a dissolution of our Constitutional Republic)
If you wish to place a real Republic in the hands of a fictional character, you have done well.
Trump is Obiwan Kanobe....he's our ONLY hope. (To slow the advance toward a dissolution of our Constitutional Republic)
I find his lack of taste disturbing.
Can anyone picture Cruz doing any of these things?
Trump's last 24 hours:
-Attacked dead soldier's family
-Trashed 4-star general
-Lied about NFL & Koch Bros.
-Accused fire marshal of bias
I disagree with your choice of terms! I would have said "pathetically UNWILLING to distinguish themselves from the jackasses."
Welcome aboard!
IF he loses....it means the Republican Party is indeed, in the dustbin of history. For no other Republican named Cruz, or otherwise would be able to 'combat' the leftward media complex against Hillary Clinton.
Trump is Obiwan Kanobe....he's our ONLY hope. (To slow the advance toward a dissolution of our Constitutional Republic)
You make the best argument (GOP in the dustbin of history) for voting for Hillary I have seen yet.Check out the Constitution Party, if you haven't.
The Republican Party represents a greater danger to our republic than either Hillary or Trump. As shown in this thread, the GOP seduces patriots into believing they are the antidote to liberal poison... To his dismay, the patriot finds himself poisoned by the false cure after it's too late.
Destroy the GOP. make room for a true conservative party to rise.
The Republican Party represents a greater danger to our republic than either Hillary or Trump.
Destroy the GOP. make room for a true conservative party to rise.
Check out the Constitution Party, if you haven't.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,214526.msg0.html#new (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,214526.msg0.html#new)
I have - they have the right positions, but they have no chance at the moment. They will benefit greatly from the lying, oxygen sucking GOP's eventual crash.I don't expect any sweeping victories, not this time. But as for building a party, if not now, when? The GOP isn't getting any more conservative, the Dems won't provide any satisfaction, so I'm going to do what I can to get the Constitution Party out there. If not all the States, as many as possible, and to let people know there is an alternative to the Libertarian Party which is a tad libertine for me.
You make the best argument (GOP in the dustbin of history) for voting for Hillary I have seen yet.
The Republican Party represents a greater danger to our republic than either Hillary or Trump. As shown in this thread, the GOP seduces patriots into believing they are the antidote to liberal poison... To his dismay, the patriot finds himself poisoned by the false cure after it's too late.
Destroy the GOP. make room for a true conservative party to rise.
The only fly in that "vote for Hillary" ointment is that the destruction of the GOP will be irrelevant in a post-Hillary US.
Liberal Trump has already shown himself to be on the McConnell, Boehner RINO GOPE wing of the Gone Old Party. I can hardly wait for the real conservative party to show up, because someone like Trump wouldn't have a seat at the table.
As it will in a post Trump USA!
Why? Do you think any congress is going to stop President Clinton?
If anyone seriously wants to stop her, the last chance is on November 8.
Yeah, we disagree a bit on that, Bigun. I think that Hillary will be worse than Trump. She's organized and has the press, academia and the "globalists" behind her. Trump isn't and doesn't to the extent that she does.
The most cognizant comment in 50+ pages of echoed-chamber, deluded, self-perpetuating, drivel from self-righteous #NeverTrumpers.
I understand where your coming from Sanguine, but Trump is also marching to Clinton's drum.
You realize you're describing yourself with the above quoted post right?
I understand where your coming from Sanguine, but Trump is also marching to Clinton's drum.
Yeah, we disagree a bit on that, Bigun. I think that Hillary will be worse than Trump. She's organized and has the press, academia and the "globalists" behind her. Trump isn't and doesn't to the extent that she does.
The more freaky ideas Trump has will either be struck down by the courts, or never get through Congress. Hillary's ideas are much more likely to be enacted into law, regulation, court decree, or mandate of some form.
I wouldn't count on his ideas never getting through Congress. The reality is we have a GOP majority right now in BOTH houses and they have done very little if anything to curtail our current president. I am hopeful that we will retain at least the majority in the House, but I am less optimistic about retaining our slim majority in the Senate. He is a liberal; I don't see a liberal Senate or House holding him back at all. Secondly, there is the power of the pen and IMHO Trump would rule primarily by executive fiat. As I have stated several times, it is absolutely lunacy to give one of the richest men in the world one of the most powerful positions in the world. He is a narcissistic demagogue; to give him that kind of power is dangerous.
I really doubt that he is one of the richest men in the world. And, his own lack of discipline and absence of filters will continue to limit his effectiveness.Forbes puts his net worth in the top 500, although there is disagreement about where, exactly, he falls in that group. No argument here about his lack of discipline and the absence of filters limiting effectiveness, but he has also shown a willingness to act rashly and make excuses blaming innocents for his rash actions. He does not accept blame, he doesn't apologize when wrong, but twists the situation to make it the victim's fault or plays the victim card himself.
Agreed. Trump is a disturbing person and lacks any sense of decorum. In addition, he can't even form complete sentences and continually repeats himself when trying to make a point. It also seems he cannot speak on any issue in depth because he just flat out lacks the knowledge.@libertybele You are incorrect, trump is a Sociopath, not a psychopath. The terms are often used interchangeably, but they are not synonyms.
He is definitely unfit to be our Commander in Chief; yet there are still those avid Trump supporters who refuse to see him for what he is; a bombastic, narcissistic, psychopath.
I really doubt that he is one of the richest men in the world. And, his own lack of discipline and absence of filters will continue to limit his effectiveness.
@libertybele You are incorrect, trump is a Sociopath, not a psychopath. The terms are often used interchangeably, but they are not synonyms.
Psychopaths, in general, have a hard time forming real emotional attachments with others. Instead, they form artificial, shallow relationships designed to be manipulated in a way that most benefits the psychopath. People are seen as pawns to be used to forward the psychopath’s goals. Psychopaths rarely feel guilt regarding any of their behaviors, no matter how much they hurt others.
But psychopaths can often be seen by others as being charming and trustworthy, holding steady, normal jobs. Some even have families and seemingly-loving relationships with a partner. While they tend to be well-educated, they may also have learned a great deal on their own.
Sociopaths, in general, tend to be more impulsive and erratic in their behavior than their psychopath counterparts. While also having difficulties in forming attachments to others, some sociopaths may be able to form an attachment to a like-minded group or person. Unlike psychopaths, most sociopaths don’t hold down long-term jobs or present much of a normal family life to the outside world.
When a sociopath engages in criminal behavior, they may do so in an impulsive and largely unplanned manner, with little regard for the risks or consequences of their actions. They may become agitated and angered easily, sometimes resulting in violent outbursts. These kinds of behaviors increase a sociopath’s chances of being apprehended.
I really doubt that he is one of the richest men in the world. And, his own lack of discipline and absence of filters will continue to limit his effectiveness.
Psychopaths, in general, have a hard time forming real emotional attachments with others. Instead, they form artificial, shallow relationships designed to be manipulated in a way that most benefits the psychopath. People are seen as pawns to be used to forward the psychopath’s goals. Psychopaths rarely feel guilt regarding any of their behaviors, no matter how much they hurt others.
But psychopaths can often be seen by others as being charming and trustworthy, holding steady, normal jobs. Some even have families and seemingly-loving relationships with a partner. While they tend to be well-educated, they may also have learned a great deal on their own.
I cannot think of a more accurate set of words to describe the demonstrated and documented life of Donald Trump.
??? His net worth has been determined to be at around $4.5 BILLION. I would consider that to be very wealthy ... putting him in a class of billionaires, I consider him one of the richest men in the world.He is in the top 500. That's up there, but when you consider that much of his wealth is tied up in leveraged properties as equity, the liquid or relatively liquid portion of those assets is a small fraction of that total. Consider, too, that the value of those assets changes from day to day, and that affects any attempt to quantify them. I know a few fairly wealthy people, some by hard work, some by luck of the draw (oil underneath land they inherited). Not all of either category are people I would consider "smart" so much as being in the right place at the right time with no calculation or premeditation. Willingness to engage in the sort of risks that pay off is sometimes accompanies by a lack of understanding of those risks, a trait that leads to what is later mistakenly attributed to boldness or market savvy.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savings/donald-trump-net-worth.aspx
http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/men/donald-trump-net-worth/
http://fortune.com/2016/05/23/doland-trump-net-worth/
http://www.refinery29.com/2016/05/111892/what-is-donald-trumps-net-worth
He is in the top 500. That's up there, but when you consider that much of his wealth is tied up in leveraged properties as equity, the liquid or relatively liquid portion of those assets is a small fraction of that total. Consider, too, that the value of those assets changes from day to day, and that affects any attempt to quantify them. I know a few fairly wealthy people, some by hard work, some by luck of the draw (oil underneath land they inherited). Not all of either category are people I would consider "smart" so much as being in the right place at the right time with no calculation or premeditation. Willingness to engage in the sort of risks that pay off is sometimes accompanies by a lack of understanding of those risks, a trait that leads to what is later mistakenly attributed to boldness or market savvy.The exact amount of his wealth is irrelevant; what matters is his greed has made him wealthier than most. He will stop at nothing to achieve his goals to accumulate wealth be it lie, cheat, swindle, deceive, sue or verbally attack and insult others. His wealth and psychotic personality disorders and lack of knowledge about the Constitution and government functions and policies make him unfit to be Commander in Chief and he would be a danger to our country.
In Trump's case, he had a few things going for him the average 'bootstraps' guy doesn't. He had family financial backing (a million dollar 'loan'). He had the experience of his father to draw on. He had connections, through his family, with people who were knowledgeable and influential. That's hardly the same experience as just getting off the boat and building a business empire from scratch.
The exact amount of his wealth is irrelevant; what matters is his greed has made him wealthier than most. He will stop at nothing to achieve his goals to accumulate wealth be it lie, cheat, swindle, deceive, sue or verbally attack and insult others. His wealth and psychotic personality disorders and lack of knowledge about the Constitution and government functions and policies make him unfit to be Commander in Chief and he would be a danger to our country.The only relevance I give it is that like most things Trump, it is overstated. Aside from that, I don't care if he's richer than Soros, he's still a raving Liberal.
The only relevance I give it is that like most things Trump, it is overstated. Aside from that, I don't care if he's richer than Soros, he's still a raving Liberal.
True. Trump is overstated. He is a psychopathic, narcissistic, liberal fraud. I'm still hoping that both Trump and Clinton will be denied the majority. I know the chances of that happening are slim to none, but I'm still holding hope.The best chance of happening is if Johnson (and yeah, I know you and a lot of others here don't particularly like the guy) gets over 10%, as he's generally polling right now.
The best chance of happening is if Johnson (and yeah, I know you and a lot of others here don't particularly like the guy) gets over 10%, as he's generally polling right now.
I'll take the 10%. That's 10% of the vote that neither Trump or Hillary get. I'm hoping that Castle will take in about 3% and my gut feeling is that Cruz write in's will be much larger than anyone ever expected...the scenario could very well deny both Trump or Hillary the majority needed.
Castle will be on the ballot here in Mi. so that's how I'll probably vote.
I'll take the 10%. That's 10% of the vote that neither Trump or Hillary get. I'm hoping that Castle will take in about 3% and my gut feeling is that Cruz write in's will be much larger than anyone ever expected...the scenario could very well deny both Trump or Hillary the majority needed.
...but I still plan on writing in Cruz.
I will no more hand a strategy vote to Johnson, whose views I find largely deplorable, just to stop Trump than I will hand a strategy vote to Trump just to stop Hillary. It's the same argument. I reject it.I agree. If necessary, I will write in Cruz or Castle.
No. Each state (leaving aside Nebraska and Maine where two electors are chosen at large and one each from each of the Congressional districts) is a first past the post winner-take all election to chose electors, all of whom will be loyalists of the candidate who takes the plurality (or majority) of the votes in that state, and in some states all of whom are bound under penalty of criminal sanction to vote in the Electoral College for the candidate who took the plurality (or majority) of popular votes in that state.
While it might be a moral victory to deny both of the corrupt, immoral, wannabe-Caesars the major parties have put up a majority of the popular vote, doing so is unlikely to stop one of them from being chosen in the Electoral College. The only hope of doing that is a wave of support for minor party candidate (meaning Johnson, no neither Castle, more desirable, though he may be to conservatives, nor Stein have any hope of pulling enough votes to matter) strong enough to carry a few states and with a pattern of drawing support from Trump and Clinton that keep either from getting a majority in the Electoral College.
Leaving aside the possibility of a death on the campaign trail, the only, vanishingly slim, chance of keeping both Trump and Clinton out of the White House is Johnson carrying a state or two, the election thrown to the House of Representatives and a GOP House having decided that Trump is insane electing Johnson, with the Senate giving him a VP from whichever major party controlled the Senate after the election.
Leaving aside the possibility of a death on the campaign trail, the only, vanishingly slim, chance of keeping both Trump and Clinton out of the White House is Johnson carrying a state or two, the election thrown to the House of Representatives and a GOP House having decided that Trump is insane electing Johnson, with the Senate giving him a VP from whichever major party controlled the Senate after the election.
Thanks for the clarification. Voting for Trump, Clinton or Johnson is not an option for me. I'll write in Cruz. Perhaps that vote won't be counted and perhaps my ballot will not be counted and all the down ballot votes lost ... but ... I will have voted my conscience.
I'll take the 10%. That's 10% of the vote that neither Trump or Hillary get. I'm hoping that Castle will take in about 3% and my gut feeling is that Cruz write in's will be much larger than anyone ever expected...the scenario could very well deny both Trump or Hillary the majority needed.(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13906763_1134959343236096_4792511065802006411_n.jpg?oh=e24f72aa5f6871cbe9a49e53b86864db&oe=585A9C4C)
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13906763_1134959343236096_4792511065802006411_n.jpg?oh=e24f72aa5f6871cbe9a49e53b86864db&oe=585A9C4C)
Pretty clear choice with Darrel Castle.
I will no more hand a strategy vote to Johnson, whose views I find largely deplorable, just to stop Trump than I will hand a strategy vote to Trump just to stop Hillary. It's the same argument. I reject it.That's where we disagree. Johnson may be wrong, but Trump and Clinton are a whole different league of deplorable.
They wouldn't have to give it to Johnson. They could give it to whomever finished fourth or fifth.Actually, the House is limited to the top three Electoral College vote-getters (as it would require at least three getting one vote to not get a majority in the College).
They wouldn't have to give it to Johnson. They could give it to whomever finished fourth or fifth.
No. Read the 12th Amendment. The relevant part being:
...The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. . .
It's the top three finishers in electoral votes (or top two in the event of a tie at 269 each).
If anything, Trump helped Cruz's run as well.
If anything, Trump helped Cruz's run as well.I'm not sure what is in the water there, but I wouldn't drink any more of it.
(http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/066e66fc4a8d43dab11581bcf9f3f698_r.jpg)
I'm not sure what is in the water there, but I wouldn't drink any more of it.
It's Trump love.
It turns healthy brains into mush.
(btw, this one, I believe CLAIMED to have supported Ted Cruz. Methinks he's not being straight with us about that).
Quote from: JustPassinThru on Today at 03:07:40 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/9NMb5Zy.png)
THAT...is the core of the whole Conservative Movement.
And it terrifies the political class. If government is made unimportant, irrelevant; and personalities minimized...what do we need with an Elite Political Class?
Today, thanks to the actions of the Elite Political Class, people are hurting - they are roiled and terrified for their future. Cruz came forward with essentially this same message. Trump came forward, and in his simpleton's vocabulary he promised "Great Deals" and "Working Smarter" - with a MORE powerful government. He also slandered Cruz, and anyone who cared to look could see the lie.
Madison had it right. The Constitution is only workable when used by a moral and religious people. It is not a suitable governing tool for fools, for liars, for amoral legalists or those who choose to be ignorant.
He couldn't be any more right!
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.
Clinton Obama per many people already have a big responsibility for the refugee crisis.
Brilliant, don't vote for their opposition, absolutely brilliant.
That's a great post from JPT.....
Trump's popularity proves that we have lost the values that the Founders knew were necessary to keep the country afloat.
Clinton Obama per many people already have a big responsibility for the refugee crisis.
Brilliant, don't vote for their opposition, absolutely brilliant.
Everyone who voted for the Iranian agent currently in the White House and ANY of his minions! That's who!
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.
That's insane. It's not Cruz's fault that Tump is a fraud.
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.
888sunglass 888sunglass
It's amazing that Cruz is already being blamed for the shortcoming of Trump. Cruz is a conservative sitting U.S. Senator and Trump is a business tycoon helping out his buddy Hillary ... but yet his supporters blame Cruz. :chairbang:
It's amazing that Cruz is already being blamed for the shortcoming of Trump. Cruz is a conservative sitting U.S. Senator and Trump is a business tycoon helping out his buddy Hillary ... but yet his supporters blame Cruz. :chairbang:
There will be terror attacks no matter who is president because its the world we live in now. Anyone who thinks Orange Glorious has some kind of magical power to shield us needs to burn their voter registration and seek treatment.
The best we could have hoped for was a president with the sense to fight terrorism effectively.
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.
Twisted logic to be sure.
Cruz dropped out over 3 months ago and has not said anything negative about Trump since.
There will be terror attacks no matter who is president because its the world we live in now. Anyone who thinks Orange Glorious has some kind of magical power to shield us needs to burn their voter registration and seek treatment.
The best we could have hoped for was a president with the sense to fight terrorism effectively.
One constant characteristic of Leftists and their idiot followers is, psychological projection - that is, asserting their opponents have the designs, the faults, the bad plans, that they themselves have. And also blaming opponents, especially those who tried to STOP these Leftists and fools, with the results of their foolishness.
It is insane. It is the muddled thinking of potheads - which is why on another thread I asserted there's a correlation between the rise in pot use in America and the coming of this sort of imbecilic political farce - and these two moronic candidates for President.
One constant characteristic of Leftists and their idiot followers is, psychological projection - that is, asserting their opponents have the designs, the faults, the bad plans, that they themselves have. And also blaming opponents, especially those who tried to STOP these Leftists and fools, with the results of their foolishness.
It is insane. It is the muddled thinking of potheads - which is why on another thread I asserted there's a correlation between the rise in pot use in America and the coming of this sort of imbecilic political farce - and these two moronic candidates for President.
Twisted logic to be sure.
Cruz dropped out over 3 months ago and has not said anything negative about Trump since.
Exactly.
Get used to it, because it isn't going to go away - no matter HOW high a wall gets built.
Its kind of like blaming white flight for destroying the inner cities. Cause and effect are confused in the minds of many.
A woman at one of the town hall meetings asked Ted Cruz if he could promise that there would be no more terror attacks on American soil if he were president. He simply and honestly said "No".
A woman at one of the town hall meetings asked Ted Cruz if he could promise that there would be no more terror attacks on American soil if he were president. He simply and honestly said "No".
He's a good man. Probably hurt him slightly though - there are a LOT of frightened people at the moment.
People are just not ready for the truth. They do not understand, do not WANT to understand, that WE are our salvation.
What they want is a Superman in GOVERNMENT, PROTECTING us.
That cannot be, of course; but the desire means there are countless demagogues out there ready to exploit it.
This is Cruz' blunt honesty, the honesty of the patriot, on display. It's in the vein of Winston Churchill: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." People right now are not ready for such a candid assessment of our situation - and as a result, the situation will be run worse.
I'll always stand with the man who tells the truth.
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.How about those people who thought making Trump their candidate against her was a good idea? I've heard from Trumpers that Cruz has destroyed his political future and won't even be re-elected. How can a guy that weak sway the election?
I'll always stand with the man who tells the truth.
I still find it slightly freaky (in a good way). A politician that both tells the truth and keeps their word to the voters.
Never been sure whether to support the guy or put him on display in a museum. :tongue2:
I say we hold him up as an example for our children and grandchildren to follow.
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.Well, you should be a taffy puller, you are so good at stretching things.
Clinton Obama per many people already have a big responsibility for the refugee crisis.
Brilliant, don't vote for their opposition, absolutely brilliant.
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.
And this, boys and girls, is why you should never smoke crack.Especially on top of all that stuff Mr. Leary was pushing...
And this, boys and girls, is why you should never smoke crack.
QuoteQuote from: TomSea on August 09, 2016, 10:40:41 AM
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.
And this, boys and girls, is why you should never smoke crack.
Especially on top of all that stuff Mr. Leary was pushing...
Especially on top of all that stuff Mr. Leary was pushing...
ROFLMFAO!!!
Yes, the Trump mentality is funny. However, the joke is on them once they realize that it is THEY who ARE responsible going forward for what happens. They will be responsible if Hillary wins and for the destruction she does to this country and they will be responsible if Trump wins and for the destruction he does to this country.Sad, but true.
Likewise, if the US gets hit by a big terror attack if Clinton is elected president, who will share that responsibility? People like Cruz.
Yes, the Trump mentality is funny. However, the joke is on them once they realize that it is THEY who ARE responsible going forward for what happens. They will be responsible if Hillary wins and for the destruction she does to this country and they will be responsible if Trump wins and for the destruction he does to this country.
So you put up a flawed candidate but it's our fault he loses.
Beahahahahahhaaaaaaaa
Not flawed.
Unacceptable.
He's not giving us a reason to vote for him. Not a one. Not his personality; not his political philosophy - of which he has none. Not guarantees or promises of action - which cannot be believed; he's been caught throwing out dozens of lies.
Not even promises of Free Excrement - he's saving that for the OTHER side, who he's hoping to seduce. My kind, he's flipping the middle finger at.
Let's see if I have this straight. People are NOT going to use their OWN estimation of the candidate and vote on that, their own conclusions - but mindlessly, depending on the endorsements of OTHERS.
And OTHERS, like CRUZ, are supposed to GIVE those endorsements mindlessly - and ignore not only the lies and slanders, but that the lies and slanders were aimed point-blank at HIM. HE was slandered. HE was accused of lawbreaking, and his father called accessory to homicide.
And for that Cruz is to issue an endorsement he certainly doesn't mean, to a candidate who is his political, philosophical and MORAL opposite...and the masses are going to REACT that that perfunctory endorsement that is not even sincere?
THAT will cause Trump to lose?
Have you gotten today's Two Minute Hate over with, yet, TS?
And lets not forget that while it was a mortal sin for Cruz not to endorse Trump...in the minds of the Trumpkins that is...they were perfectly find and even justified Trump NOT initially endorsing Ryan and McCain.
Talk about pretzel logic. :pondering:
And lets not forget that while it was a mortal sin for Cruz not to endorse Trump...in the minds of the Trumpkins that is...they were perfectly find and even justified Trump NOT initially endorsing Ryan and McCain.
Talk about pretzel logic. :pondering:
The salient point here is the left will always point fingers and fix blame on others for their own faults and problems. A good Christian conservative will accept their mistakes and move forward to correct their errors.
..."I want to ask each of you to imagine, imagine millions of courageous conservatives, all across America, rising up together to say in unison “we demand our liberty. Today, roughly half of born again Christians aren’t voting. They’re staying home. Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values."!
-- Ted Cruz
Liberty University address
If that happened there would be no Hillary presidency! And no Trump one either!
That would be a good thing. But the Dems are countering by challenging voter ID laws in many states and winning, so that anti-christians and illegals can vote for them. They are also illegally importing people and changing the rules to their advantage. For a good conservative to win all this unlawlessness by the Dems AND GOPers must be stopped. Since the Clinton clan including Trump won't do anything about constitutional crises, we must elect Castle. The ONLY choice to regain a constitutional foundation to this country.
I hear what you are saying about Castle; clearly the electorate unfortunately has rejected a "constitutional" president already. I think the GOP is in bigger trouble than they think. Remember that some of the congressional district maps have been redrawn that now favor the DEMS. I know that will have a huge impact here in FL and I don't think Rubio will retain his seat, nor do I think Trump will win here.
The GOP? The Globalist Oligarch Party? (Only slightly sarcastic)
No he wasn't treated fairly. I no longer visit FoxNew.com or Drudge.
That would be a good thing. But the Dems are countering by challenging voter ID laws in many states and winning, so that anti-christians and illegals can vote for them. They are also illegally importing people and changing the rules to their advantage. For a good conservative to win all this unlawlessness by the Dems AND GOPers must be stopped. Since the Clinton clan including Trump won't do anything about constitutional crises, we must elect Castle. The ONLY choice to regain a constitutional foundation to this country.
While I will be casting a vote for Castle (or writing him in) - it would be a BIG MISTAKE to assume voting him or ANYONE into office is going to return us to a Constitutional Foundation.
Only a moral and religious people are capable of being governed by the Constitution and the only people capable of freedom.
Sadly, we are no longer those people. We are a tiny minority in this country at present.
Our problems are spiritual in nature at their root - not political. Our rulers are simply a reflection of We The Depraved People.
We refused to be governed by God, so now we are being ruled by the tyranny of men.
Totally Agree! One election cycle or one person will turn around this country. But we have to start. Anyone who votes for Hillary or the Donald only because they believe Castle has no chance, isn't giving him a chance and doesn't want this country turned around.Exactly! "Unelectable" is the self-fulfilling prophesy the two parties have used to keep us in thrall while they do as they please and even ignore their own platform planks willy-nilly, although the latter tends to be a Republican Party trait.
Forum Rule: for the duration, no Hitler references; they're too inflammatory. All Hitler-related posts have been deleted.
Seems to me I've heard that somewhere else. But what "duration" are we talking about?I'm thinking the election.
I'm thinking the election.
Besides, I don't think Trump is genocidal. He wants to control people, not eradicate them.
I'm thinking the election.
Besides, I don't think Trump is genocidal. He wants to control people, not eradicate them.
Trump doesn't so much bear a resemblance to the little mustachioed one as the situation surrounding his candidacy bears to the means by which the Nasties came to power. Populism; fanaticism; despair and an opposition (communist) that was so bad that the NSDAP seemed tame by comparison.
Forum Rule: for the duration, no Hitler references; they're too inflammatory. All Hitler-related posts have been deleted.
People who ban Hitler references are just like Hitler.
I'm thinking the election.
Besides, I don't think Trump is genocidal. He wants to control people, not eradicate them.
Did the other guy want to eradicate people when he ran?
Yes, he did. This is crazy - there's no comparison.
So your saying that he ran on exterminating the Jews when he was elected and the German people voted for it? I've not heard that before.
In 1923, he attempted a coup in Munich to seize power. The failed coup resulted in Hitler's imprisonment, during which time he dictated the first volume of his autobiography and political manifesto Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"). After his release in 1924, Hitler gained popular support by attacking the Treaty of Versailles and promoting Pan-Germanism, anti-Semitism, and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and Nazi propaganda. Hitler frequently denounced international capitalism and communism as being part of a Jewish conspiracy.
By 1933, the Nazi Party was the largest elected party in the German Reichstag, which led to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. Following fresh elections won by his coalition, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which began the process of transforming the Weimar Republic into Nazi Germany, a one-party dictatorship based on the totalitarian and autocratic ideology of National Socialism. Hitler aimed to eliminate Jews from Germany and establish a New Order to counter what he saw as the injustice of the post-World War I international order dominated by Britain and France....
https://www.wikipedia.org/
??? His net worth has been determined to be at around $4.5 BILLION. I would consider that to be very wealthy ... putting him in a class of billionaires, I consider him one of the richest men in the world.
I want to point out that the "Enabling Act" didn't just "begin the process" to dictatorship, it was "the dictatorship law" for all intents and purposes.
People who ban Hitler references are just like Hitler.
Seems to me that it borders on infringing on the first amendment; but it's now a forum rule. I'm still trying to understand why people are offended by references comparing Trump to Hitler. For heaven's sake, being educated and informed may just prevent the next Hitler from emerging and taking control. I would think that avoiding another Hitler-like regime would be welcome!
Forum Rule: for the duration, no Hitler references; they're too inflammatory. All Hitler-related posts have been deleted.
Just down the ol' memory hole, huh? Well alrighty then.
How about Mussolini references? Are they right out as well?
Any other fascist dictators or dictator-wannabes that we're not allowed to compare Mr. Trump to? Just checking so that I don't step on any sensitive toes in the future. Trumpists seem to have such sensitive toes, after all.
Note: any sarcasm detected in this post was purely intentional.
How do you think this relates to the 1st Amendment?
And, being a site where hitlerisms are not casually bandied about is a good thing, IMHO.
And, just going to put this out there - comparing DT to hitler is just wrong. Just flat wrong.
This ground has been gone over so many times, there's no grass within miles. :thud:
I'm sure it will all work out. After all, it can't happen here, right? :seeya:
How do you think this relates to the 1st Amendment?You are, of course, correct. He who shall not be named served in his country's army in the first World War, had a plan for what he wanted to do and shared it well in advance, and, iirc, never married, unless you count wedding Eva Braun at the last minute.
And, being a site where hitlerisms are not casually bandied about is a good thing, IMHO.
And, just going to put this out there - comparing DT to hitler is just wrong. Just flat wrong.
You are, of course, correct. He who shall not be named served in his country's army in the first World War, had a plan for what he wanted to do and shared it well in advance, and, iirc, never married, unless you count wedding Eva Braun at the last minute.
There are other salient differences as well.
However, the mindset of the angry populations which supported the two are a more fertile basis for comparison. I do not think it is the person who becomes dictator so much as the crowd they please, and unfortunately, angry mobs change direction like a cattle stampede. The German people were angry, frustrated, commonly unemployed, and economically injured. The productive class in America is much the same. Both are angry at government and the chattering classes for the problems they face every day. Both have their scapegoats. There are many other parallels I won't go into here, but suffice it to say that those who seek the adulation of an angry crowd will do angry things to keep that adulation. That thirst for 'vengeance' is never slaked once whetted, and only grows. That is what makes things dangerous out there.
And, just going to put this out there - comparing DT to hitler is just wrong. Just flat wrong.
Now you're asking a different question.
Your original question was: "Did the other guy want to eradicate people when he ran?"
And, the answer is "yes, he did". As is the answer to your second question:
..."I want to ask each of you to imagine, imagine millions of courageous conservatives, all across America, rising up together to say in unison “we demand our liberty. Today, roughly half of born again Christians aren’t voting. They’re staying home. Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values."!Well I'm really glad that you agree with Ted on this, now tell me, if you will how this statement is markedly different from what he said at the convention. *hmmmm*
-- Ted Cruz
Liberty University address
In a way you're making my point. Trump is attacking "globalism" via free trade, international treaties like NATO, etc. in the name of America first. Just replace Jew with Mexican as far as people go. I do not believe Trump is a homicidal maniac nor am I trying to make that association but I also don't believe the German voters thought that the guy who cannot be named was either.
You're right! Comparing him to Mussolini is much more correct if you ask me!
Oh, I won't. The thing that separates him from another homeless prophet on a streetcorner is his money and a willing audience. That other chap didn't have the money Trump has, but he did have a willing and angry mob, organization within that mob, very good handlers, and he frightened and browbeat enough people into not objecting or meekly following when they should not have gone along with the true believers to get along. They could have stopped him, or made him irrelevant by looking the other way. His manifesto would not have meant any more than the Unabomber's if the people had not followed him, be that willingly, grudgingly, or out of abject fear.
Trump has managed to tap into the anger and frustration of the electorate; there is absolutely no denying that. Obviously what is in dispute is why? To make America great, to make himself wealthier, the need for power, to hand Hillary the White House?? We do know that he has verbally stated his thirst for 'vengeance' and he has made obvious uncalled for attacks on several individuals and groups of people in order to accomplish his objective. He continues to mirror the personality traits of Hitler; a narcissistic, psychopathic demagogue. All things considered he has the potential to be equally as dangerous as Hitler. Why give him the keys to the kingdom?
Oh, I won't. The thing that separates him from another homeless prophet on a streetcorner is his money and a willing audience. That other chap didn't have the money Trump has, but he did have a willing and angry mob, organization within that mob, very good handlers, and he frightened and browbeat enough people into not objecting or meekly following when they should not have gone along with the true believers to get along. They could have stopped him, or made him irrelevant by looking the other way. His manifesto would not have meant any more then the Unabomber's if the people had not followed him, be that willingly, grudgingly, or out of abject fear.
When we look back at that war, and the unapologetic aerial bombing of military and civilian target alike, those who study the ethics of that often leave out that without the people, the leader would have been a nobody, and not a contender. It is that synergetic symbiosis which creates tyranny most foul.
That "leader" was nothing without a blindly angry mob (who were in fact a minority) and those who meekly looked the other way or went along to get along.Precisely, but give his handlers credit, too. Milestones in propaganda, the distribution thereof, the soft sell, the use of shock tactics and intimidation, the development of military tactics and materiel, process engineers, efficiency experts, chemists, etc... He was surrounded by people who were very good at what they did, some of the 'best'. We do not agree with the purpose to which they devoted their talents, but let's not sell their capabilities short. The methods of his tacticians and propagandists are still studied today, and we made off with a bunch of scientists, either a step ahead of his conscription or after the war--as did the Soviets and British.
Precisely, but give his handlers credit, too. Milestones in propaganda, the distribution thereof, the soft sell, the use of shock tactics and intimidation, the development of military tactics and materiel, process engineers, efficiency experts, chemists, etc... He was surrounded by people who were very good at what they did, some of the 'best'. We do not agree with the purpose to which they devoted their talents, but let's not sell their capabilities short. The methods of his tacticians and propagandists are still studied today, and we made off with a bunch of scientists, either a step ahead of his conscription or after the war--as did the Soviets and British.
Agreed. I think the leader could have been appeased by simply evicting the Jews from Europe but others in the hierarchy were never going to accept anything less than total extermination.Do not forget Leni Riefenstahl, Producer of Triumph des Willens, probably the most effective propaganda film of all time. (Triumph of the Will). Lighting, staging, camera angles, dramatic effects all designed to evoke Teutonic emotionalism, nationalism, the feeling of Roman Legions lined up for war, of strength unstoppable. Heady stuff for a defeated nation just out of a depression looking to it's army for prestige.
As far as propagandists of that era go, they largely learned it from our Wilson era propogandist like Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman. Goebbels was known to show his copy of Bernays "Crystallizing public opinion"