The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: ABX on August 05, 2016, 03:02:46 am
-
Donald Trump's campaign is flailing. The most recent polls showing Hillary Clinton with an embarrassing lead over Donald. In fact, he's polling so poorly with the black vote, a group he swore he could get 25% of, that in the most recent poll, literally only 1 black respondent supported Trump. One.....
http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2016/08/04/you-knew-damn-well-trump-was-a-snake-before-you-let-him-in/
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpDeizGWYAAoo71.jpg)
-
Donald Trump's campaign is flailing. The most recent polls showing Hillary Clinton with an embarrassing lead over Donald. In fact, he's polling so poorly with the black vote, a group he swore he could get 25% of, that in the most recent poll, literally only 1 black respondent supported Trump. One.....
It will be funny if Hillary Clinton gets a higher percentage of the black vote than did Obama. I assume that black Conservatives are no different than white Conservatives when it comes to voting for Big Government liberals from New York.
-
:thumbsup:
-
literally only 1 black respondent supported Trump.
That one respondent was Jerome Dylan from Chicago and he says that the reason he got counted as a Trump supporter is because he sneezed his answer and was misheard.
-
literally only 1 black respondent supported Trump.
That one respondent was Jerome Dylan from Chicago and he says that the reason he got counted as a Trump supporter is because he sneezed his answer and was misheard.
:happyhappy:
-
literally only 1 black respondent supported Trump.
That one respondent was Jerome Dylan from Chicago and he says that the reason he got counted as a Trump supporter is because he sneezed his answer and was misheard.
Jerome's Black Disciples street cred took a hit.
-
Yah. It's all fun and giggles until January 20. when the #nevertrumpmania results in HRC raising her bloody right hand and placing her bloody left hand on the Bible and opening her lying mouth to swear the oath.
Won't that be a hoot?!
@LonestarDream
-
literally only 1 black respondent supported Trump.
That one respondent was Jerome Dylan from Chicago and he says that the reason he got counted as a Trump supporter is because he sneezed his answer and was misheard.
Well what about Diamond and Silk huh? They prove that Trump is making inroads with blacks.
-
In fact, he's polling so poorly with the black vote, a group he swore he could get 25% of, that in the most recent poll, literally only 1 black respondent supported Trump. One.....
I guess when Trump said "Look at my African-American over there", he wasn't kidding.
-
Yah. It's all fun and giggles until January 20. when the #nevertrumpmania results in HRC raising her bloody right hand and placing her bloody left hand on the Bible and opens her lying mouth to swear the oath.
Won't that be a hoot?!
@LonestarDream
#nevertrump as an identifiable organization is a stupid idea that will result in absolutely nothing good at all.
Trump will sink or swim based upon the kind of campaign he runs. #nevertrump is only setting itself up as a punching bag should Hillary win.
-
Yah. It's all fun and giggles until January 20. when the #nevertrumpmania results in HRC raising her bloody right hand and placing her bloody left hand on the Bible and opens her lying mouth to swear the oath.
Won't that be a hoot?!
@LonestarDream
We told you this would happen. A year ago.
Besides, if #NeverTrump had the kind of power some Trumpsters think it does, this charlatan would never have been nominated in the first place.
-
#nevertrump as an identifiable organization is a stupid idea that will result in absolutely nothing good at all.
Trump will sink or swim based upon the kind of campaign he runs. #nevertrump is only setting itself up as a punching bag should Hillary win.
#NeverTrump has no power to cause anything to happen. And cowards who think it does are simply covering up their own stupidity at backing Trump in the first place.
-
We told you this would happen. A year ago.
Besides, if #NeverTrump had the kind of power some Trumpsters think it does, this charlatan would never have been nominated in the first place.
William F Buckley told us this would happen 16 years ago, and predicted it almost to the letter. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430187/william-f-buckley-donald-trump-demagoguery-cigar-aficionado
It is up to Conservatives to stand up for limited Constitutional government that protects individual liberty, and to oppose liberal authortarianism, no matter what letter is on the jersey. This isn't a college sports game where you have to root for your mascot only, hell or high water. This isn't a game at all.
If Trump is such a master deal maker and negotiator like he claims to be, it is up to him to win over Conservatives with his so-called amazing sales ability.
-
William F Buckley told us this would happen 16 years ago, and predicted it almost to the letter. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430187/william-f-buckley-donald-trump-demagoguery-cigar-aficionado
It is up to Conservatives to stand up for limited Constitutional government that protects individual liberty, and to oppose liberal authortarianism, no matter what letter is on the jersey. This isn't a college sports game where you have to root for your mascot only, hell or high water. This isn't a game at all.
If Trump is such a master deal maker and negotiator like he claims to be, it is up to him to win over Conservatives with his so-called amazing sales ability.
goopo :beer:
-
We told you this would happen. A year ago.
You know what? I was saying the same thing. Then.
That "I told you so" seems to be a convenient excuse for hunkering down and paving the road for Her Heinousness. It quit working for me on July 5.
-
Yah. It's all fun and giggles until January 20. when the #nevertrumpmania results in HRC raising her bloody right hand and placing her bloody left hand on the Bible and opening her lying mouth to swear the oath.
Won't that be a hoot?!
@LonestarDream
Why do you think that people who knew and told the truth about who Trump was and is will be responsible for Hillary's victory?
Trump's opposition was screaming the truth about who he was and a plurality of Republican voters just ignored them, and nominated this corrupt leftist reprobate as a "Republican" nominee anyway.
The fault of Hillary's victory lies completely on Trump himself, and those who fell for his lies.
Not the rest of us who sounded the warning.
(This post of yours disappoints me greatly @don-o . You are blaming the principled people for the faults of those who threw them away).
-
You know what? I was saying the same thing. Then.
That "I told you so" seems to be a convenient excuse for hunkering down and paving the road for Her Heinousness. It quit working for me on July 5.
Well good for you. Hillary is terrible but she's not nuts.
Trump is nuts. Cannot vote for crazy.
-
You know what? I was saying the same thing. Then.
That "I told you so" seems to be a convenient excuse for hunkering down and paving the road for Her Heinousness. It quit working for me on July 5.
But the evil of Donald Trump didn't end on July 5th.
-
Yah. It's all fun and giggles until January 20. when the #nevertrumpmania results in HRC raising her bloody right hand and placing her bloody left hand on the Bible and opening her lying mouth to swear the oath.
Won't that be a hoot?!
@LonestarDream
The responsibility lies with Donald J. Trump, and no one else.
Don't blame it on NeverTrumpers.
Don't blame it on the media.
Don't blame it on Ted Cruz.
Trump broke it, he owns it.
-
Why do you think that people who knew and told the truth about who Trump was and is will be responsible for Hillary's victory?
Trump's opposition was screaming the truth about who he was and a plurality of Republican voters just ignored them, and nominated this corrupt leftist reprobate as a "Republican" nominee anyway.
The fault of Hillary's victory lies completely on Trump himself, and those who fell for his lies.
Not the rest of us who sounded the warning.
(This post of yours disappoints me greatly @don-o . You are blaming the principled people for the faults of those who threw them away).
Because we lost. And yes, I do mean we - people of principle. That is done. And I hate losing. I am not looking forward to losing again. HRC in WH is mega losing.
Have you read my piece that is still above the fold? Would very much welcome your thoughts on that thread.
Can you refute the mathematical fact that a not Trump vote is a boost to Hillary's margin?
-
Yah. It's all fun and giggles until January 20. when the #nevertrumpmania results in HRC raising her bloody right hand and placing her bloody left hand on the Bible and opening her lying mouth to swear the oath.
Won't that be a hoot?!
@LonestarDream
The only thing scarier than a hitlery presidency is a trump presidency.
-
But the evil of Donald Trump didn't end on July 5th.
With respect, please consider this "evil" characterization in light of the better/worse and prudential judgment framework that I assert in my "Odyssey" essay.
-
Because we lost. And yes, I do mean we - people of principle. That is done. And I hate losing. I am not looking forward to losing again. HRC in WH is mega losing.
Have you read my piece that is still above the fold? Would very much welcome your thoughts on that thread.
Can you refute the mathematical fact that a not Trump vote is a boost to Hillary's margin?
It is a mathematical likelihood that Trump will win Texas. My vote won't matter one way or the other. So I'm not voting for the top of the ticket.
-
It is a mathematical likelihood that Trump will win Texas. My vote won't matter one way or the other. So I'm not voting for the top of the ticket.
What if you lived in Virginia?
-
Well good for you. Hillary is terrible but she's not nuts.
Trump is nuts. Cannot vote for crazy.
Sink, you're sorta making my point. DT is not going to be effective as Pres., HRC will be very effective. Horrible reason to pick one over the other, but there it is.
-
Sink, you're sorta making my point. DT is not going to be effective as Pres., HRC will be very effective. Horrible reason to pick one over the other, but there it is.
The only potential solice that I have, and I have absolutely no plan to support or vote for either Hillary or Trump in either way, is she is so damaged within her own party, she has so many criminal cases potentially blowning up against her, and her health seems to be declining rapidly, that she may also be ineffective and possibly may not last as long. If the Republicans can retain the House and Senate, and if the pressure can be continued to be put on to expose her corruption via Wikileaks, then her term could be kept completely blocked with legal wranglings against her even up to the point of impeachment. Something we would be less willing to do with a leader from our own party of whom our reps would want to defend and be an apologist for.
I'm starting to understand Thomas Payne's quote regarding better to have a leader you can oppose than one you are forced to defend.
-
Because we lost. And yes, I do mean we - people of principle. That is done. And I hate losing. I am not looking forward to losing again. HRC in WH is mega losing.
Have you read my piece that is still above the fold? Would very much welcome your thoughts on that thread.
Can you refute the mathematical fact that a not Trump vote is a boost to Hillary's margin?
I will be glad to read your piece when I get an extra minute, @don-o , but my conscience cannot be reduced to mathematics. It runs deeper than that.
I cannot cast a vote for an amoral, serial adulterer, who is also a pathological liar, a narcissist, completely corrupt, a big government leftist, pro-abortion, and borderline insane (at best).
And I will not be persuaded to go against my conscience no matter how sincere the efforts to make me do so are.
I will not vote for Hillary. I will not vote for Trump.
Whatever choice I make on election day as to whom I will vote for, or whether I vote for the President or not, is yet to be decided. But I cannot vote for someone who so violently opposes every moral and political value I have.
-
I will be glad to read your piece when I get an extra minute, @don-o , but my conscience cannot be reduced to mathematics. It runs deeper than that.
I understand that. All of it. Because I have been there.
-
You know what? I was saying the same thing. Then.
That "I told you so" seems to be a convenient excuse for hunkering down and paving the road for Her Heinousness. It quit working for me on July 5.
Trump's doing a fine job of losing, all by himself.
The whole "vote for Trump or Hillary wins" trope presupposes that there's actually a "lesser of two evils" here, and that Trump is it.
Got news for you, though: they're equally evil. I'm not voting for evil.
-
Trump's doing a fine job of losing, all by himself.
The whole "vote for Trump or Hillary wins" trope presupposes that there's actually a "lesser of two evils" here, and that Trump is it.
Got news for you, though: they're equally evil. I'm not voting for evil.
Please engage this
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,218923.msg1000871/topicseen.html#msg1000871
-
You know what? I was saying the same thing. Then.
That "I told you so" seems to be a convenient excuse for hunkering down and paving the road for Her Heinousness. It quit working for me on July 5.
Conservativism is the only thing that save this country.
Conservatism won't survive Trump. He will have unfettered power to squash it, with the GOPE right there with him. People who are voting for him, who would usually defend conservatism, won't. They adjust their sails to conform to Trump policy. They won't fight him.
But they'll fight Hillary. And hopefully they'll come back around to understandimg how important conservativism is in the first place.
But it will survive Hillary.
-
Please engage this
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,218923.msg1000871/topicseen.html#msg1000871
It's not compelling. My apparent choice is between two manifestly unqualified candidates, or to have nothing to do with either of them. I choose the latter.
The only advantage of a Trump presidency is his likely and quick impeachment. To vote for him on that basis is beyond irresponsible.
-
Sink, you're sorta making my point. DT is not going to be effective as Pres., HRC will be very effective. Horrible reason to pick one over the other, but there it is.
This is a very worthwhile point.
:th_10444:
-
Conservativism is the only thing that save this country.
Conservatism won't survive Trump. He will have unfettered power to squash it, with the GOPE right there with him. People who are voting for him, who would usually defend conservatism, won't. They adjust their sails to conform to Trump policy. They won't fight him.
But they'll fight Hillary. And hopefully they'll come back around to understandimg how important conservativism is in the first place.
But it will survive Hillary.
Conservatism bows to NO man. Witness Cruz' steadfast grip of principles over personalities.
I don't think Trump can destroy it. He may try to tar it with his appropriation of the label; but conservatives who are conservatives, who are smart enough to understand what is conservatism, will not be affected.
Madame Rodham, as noted, will be effective in the leveling of America. Trump, being insane, will be less so.
It's the same reason I looked forward to Bernie's nomination. Bernie's ideology is exponentially more lethal; but the man himself is a bozo. Easily dealt with.
Cankles, not so much.
-
Conservatism bows to NO man.
True in theory, perhaps, but not in practice.
Just look at the last at least 5 primary cycles: "Conservatism" has fallen to the point of extended bickering over which candidate is most deserving of "The Mantle of Reagan."
Where are the debates over conservative ideas? Where's the discussion of why conservative ideas are better than what's currently running the country? There's little or none of that anymore -- hasn't been since, maybe, GWB's first campaign. "Conservatism" as a movement is very sick.
Witness Cruz' steadfast grip of principles over personalities.
And that, too, is a fallacy. Politics is about personalities, just as much as it's about principles. Politics is about people dealing with one another, and those who don't play well with others generally don't succeed. Leadership, character, vision ... those are all personality things, not ideas; and in the political world they're indispensable.
-
It's not compelling. My apparent choice is between two manifestly unqualified candidates, or to have nothing to do with either of them. I choose the latter.
The only advantage of a Trump presidency is his likely and quick impeachment. To vote for him on that basis is beyond irresponsible.
All right. How about coming to the thread and showing how I am wrong? I assert that "the lesser of two evils" argument for "none of the above" is a matter of placing a judgement question in an incorrect category.
-
Conservatism bows to NO man. Witness Cruz' steadfast grip of principles over personalities.
Good point. In a Washington DC that everyone agrees has become hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional then any person who adhere to conservative principles will be considered a pariah.
If we want improvement we need politicians who tell current beneficiaries of government largess they can no longer rig the game in their own favor - the Ethanol lobby for example.
Of course this is why conservatives are the least popular figures in town.
But thats just what this country needs right now. Its the only answer. But I do not think the collective we are wise enough to choose it.
-
All right. How about coming to the thread and showing how I am wrong? I assert that "the lesser of two evils" argument for "none of the above" is a matter of placing a judgement question in an incorrect category.
Well, I'll give you points for effort. But when you have to work that hard to justify one wrong choice over another wrong choice, without acknowledging the possibility that both choices are wrong, then it suggests you've got a categorical error of your own.
-
Yah. It's all fun and giggles until January 20. when the #nevertrumpmania results in HRC raising her bloody right hand and placing her bloody left hand on the Bible and opening her lying mouth to swear the oath.
The difference here is that the anti-Trump people will have seen that day coming for 18 months, while the pro-Trump people will be scratching behind their deaf ears wondering how we got in this spot, trying to figure out who is to blame.
-
Well, I'll give you points for effort. But when you have to work that hard to justify one wrong choice over another wrong choice, without acknowledging the possibility that both choices are wrong, then it suggests you've got a categorical error of your own.
Here's your binary choice:
1. Vote for a NY liberal.
2. Don't vote for a NY liberal.
I choose option 2.
-
Here's your binary choice:
1. Vote for a NY liberal.
2. Don't vote for a NY liberal.
I choose option 2.
Made me chuckle. Well stated.
-
Because we lost. And yes, I do mean we - people of principle. That is done. And I hate losing. I am not looking forward to losing again. HRC in WH is mega losing.
Have you read my piece that is still above the fold? Would very much welcome your thoughts on that thread.
Can you refute the mathematical fact that a not Trump vote is a boost to Hillary's margin?
I live in Idaho if my vote is on the line as a deciding factor, then Trump has lost bigly. I'd rather see 3rd parties get some traction no matter the outcome.
Here's an interesting article on the math of a wasted vote you might be interested in: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,219362.0.html
-
True in theory, perhaps, but not in practice.
Just look at the last at least 5 primary cycles: "Conservatism" has fallen to the point of extended bickering over which candidate is most deserving of "The Mantle of Reagan."
Where are the debates over conservative ideas? Where's the discussion of why conservative ideas are better than what's currently running the country? There's little or none of that anymore -- hasn't been since, maybe, GWB's first campaign. "Conservatism" as a movement is very sick.
And that, too, is a fallacy. Politics is about personalities, just as much as it's about principles. Politics is about people dealing with one another, and those who don't play well with others generally don't succeed. Leadership, character, vision ... those are all personality things, not ideas; and in the political world they're indispensable.
Not everyone who claims to be a conservative is in fact one.
The proof of the pudding is the tasting. And most of these "conservatives" wearing the Big C and dancing onstage in their short skirts, taste like big-government statists. Maybe not collectivists, but certainly no friend of American principles or liberty.
-
Not everyone who claims to be a conservative is in fact one.
The proof of the pudding is the tasting. And most of these "conservatives" wearing the Big C and dancing onstage in their short skirts, taste like big-government statists. Maybe not collectivists, but certainly no friend of American principles or liberty.
And not everyone who is a conservative is a good candidate.
But more importantly, just because you, or I, or Joe Blow says the word "conservative," it doesn't mean that we could define it for ourselves; or agree upon its definition among ourselves; or present to the general electorate a reasonable definition of "conservative" as a basis for political action.
-
Well what about Diamond and Silk huh? They prove that Trump is making inroads with blacks.
Well he does have Omarosa as well.
-
Sink, you're sorta making my point. DT is not going to be effective as Pres., HRC will be very effective. Horrible reason to pick one over the other, but there it is.
You think Trump will be marginalized on the biggest stage in the world? This man who, like a crying infant, demands attention, demands that his pants be figuratively emptied in front of 10,000 screaming nursemaids, that every self-absorbed need be satisfied? That he be on the screens of every American every minute of every day?
You must be kidding. The presidency is Trump's next exercise in self-aggrandizement. He will have the power of the presidency and he will turn it into another Trump enterprise, with his family installed in the corridors of power like the college of cardinals.
I will not vote for a crazed narcissist. Under any circumstances.
-
You think Trump will be marginalized on the biggest stage in the world? This man who, like a crying infant, demands attention, demands that his pants be figuratively emptied in front of 10,000 screaming nursemaids, that every self-absorbed need be satisfied? That he be on the screens of every American every minute of every day?
I honestly believe he'd be impeached, convicted, and thrown out of office within two years -- especially if the Democrats take over the Senate, but even if the Republicans retain control.
-
I honestly believe he'd be impeached, convicted, and thrown out of office within two years -- especially if the Democrats take over the Senate, but even if the Republicans retain control.
And, for some here, that's a reason we ought to vote for him. Can you imagine?
"VOTE TRUMP. THERE'S ALWAYS IMPEACHMENT."
-
And, for some here, that's a reason we ought to vote for him. Can you imagine?
"VOTE TRUMP. THERE'S ALWAYS IMPEACHMENT."
I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't be all that long before we're looking at a 25th Amendment situation, regardless of who wins in November. I don't think Hillary is all that healthy, and the stress of the presidency could do her in.
-
Well he does have Omarosa as well.
And Ben Carson...couple more and he'll have a fullon BLM for Trump... Manhattan chapter.
-
Well what about Diamond and Silk huh? They prove that Trump is making inroads with blacks.
Well, to point out one little thing, they are both paid actresses so we have no clue if they truly believe in him or they are acting a role they are payed to play.
-
Yah. It's all fun and giggles until January 20. when the #nevertrumpmania results in HRC raising her bloody right hand and placing her bloody left hand on the Bible and opening her lying mouth to swear the oath.
Won't that be a hoot?!
@LonestarDream
You want someone to blame for the loss to hitlary? Look to Lord Donald King of Ineptitude, Duke of Dimwittedness, Knight of Clownishness, and all of the willing Serfs who on bended knee worship at his alter of hyperbole, those are the true crafters of this disaster, not those of that chose wisely. Oh and by the way I see that all of us that the Donald and his cheerleaders told were not needed to win are apparently needed after all, why else would we you think we would be to blame for his loss. Different day same sad story, you wanted Trump he's your problem, but oh what a gift to the late night comedians.
-
Here's your binary choice:
1. Vote for a NY liberal.
2. Don't vote for a NY liberal.
I choose option 2.
Precisely right. I choose option 2, as well.
@don-o
-
Well, to point out one little thing, they are both paid actresses so we have no clue if they truly believe in him or they are acting a role they are payed to play.
:) I was being sarcastic. I have to say that when they show Trump rallies, there is a diverse crowd in his audience. Surprisingly diverse. Polls tell another story though.
-
:) I was being sarcastic. I have to say that when they show Trump rallies, there is a diverse crowd in his audience. Surprisingly diverse. Polls tell another story though.
You are right, this parade for Trump does look very diverse. :smokin:
(https://cbscleveland.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/img_4367.jpg?w=798)
-
You are right, this parade for Trump does look very diverse. :smokin:
Remarkably so! And some wine and gold colored shirts in that photo too. Are those Donald's favorite colors?? ^-^
-
I honestly believe he'd be impeached, convicted, and thrown out of office within two years -- especially if the Democrats take over the Senate, but even if the Republicans retain control.
Nope. you are thinking like a human being, not a Dem apparatchik.
If the Dems take the senate, they will not impeach Trump. Why would they? They can use his term full of idiocy to destroy both conservatism and republicans for at least a generation.
They tried with W, and failed basically because W is a good man AND IT SHOWS.
-
Nope. you are thinking like a human being, not a Dem apparatchik.
If the Dems take the senate, they will not impeach Trump. Why would they? They can use his term full of idiocy to destroy both conservatism and republicans for at least a generation.
Well, yes, you're right: I am thinking like a human bean. OTOH, if the Dems in the Senate were to act as you suggest, after the House impeached him, it would effectively mean that they're endorsing Trump.
On the House side, if the GOP (probably still) majority were in favor of impeachment, the Dems would almost have to go along with it.
Hillary, on the other hand, would never get impeached (even though she'd probably deserve it).
-
If the Dems take the senate, they will not impeach Trump. Why would they? They can use his term full of idiocy to destroy both conservatism and republicans for at least a generation.
They tried with W, and failed basically because W is a good man AND IT SHOWS.
They failed, but alas the Republicans themselves didn't. They had a genius for self destruction long before Donaldus Minimus was
a blip on any Republican's radar:
(https://store.cato.org/sites/default/files/styles/store-detail-img-15x/public/9781933995281_FC.jpg?itok=73jLfa8C)
-
Yah. It's all fun and giggles until January 20. when the #nevertrumpmania results in HRC raising her bloody right hand and placing her bloody left hand on the Bible and opening her lying mouth to swear the oath.
Won't that be a hoot?!
@LonestarDream
BS! Donny said repeatedly and clearly in no uncertain terms that he didn't need us. So was Donny lying when he claimed that he didn't need our votes? What happened to all the support he claimed that he would get that would more that make up for the lack of support from the anti- Trump people? Was Donny lying about that as well? I know you won't answer any of these question because you Trumpkins have been no better! That was the the thing I saw going in if Trump won it was rub your face in it Trump is the Man and if he lost it was all the anti-Trump crowded's fault even though you Trumpkins claim repeatedly and loudly that the never Trumps had no power to stop the Donald. So which is it?
-
Because we lost. And yes, I do mean we - people of principle. That is done. And I hate losing. I am not looking forward to losing again. HRC in WH is mega losing.
If they vote for Trump knowing what a lowlife scumbag he is, then they are not "people of principle"
-
You are right, this parade for Trump does look very diverse. :smokin:
(https://cbscleveland.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/img_4367.jpg?w=798)
:silly:
-
What if you lived in Virginia?
@don-o
I live in Virginia, and I won't vote for Trump. Not under any circumstances.
Do I believe Hillary is evil? Without doubt. I believe the same of Trump, and when I say evil, I mean it in the spiritual, Biblical sense (or perhaps the genuine sense). I've seen the video in which he says he wouldn't stop the process of driving scissors into a newborn's skull. And I don't believe for one moment the man has changed.
I won't stand in front of Jesus and answer for that.
-
@don-o
I live in Virginia, and I won't vote for Trump. Not under any circumstances.
Do I believe Hillary is evil? Without doubt. I believe the same of Trump, and when I say evil, I mean it in the spiritual, Biblical sense (or perhaps the genuine sense). I've seen the video in which he says he wouldn't stop the process of driving scissors into a newborn's skull. And I don't believe for one moment the man has changed.
I won't stand in front of Jesus and answer for that.
Nor will I.
And I live in Ohio.
(As if where one lives dictates one's conscience..... If that's not situation ethics, literally, what is??)
-
Nor will I.
And I live in Ohio.
(As if where one lives dictates one's conscience..... If that's not situation ethics, literally, what is??)
I've been there when it comes to voting for a candidate when you know it's the wrong thing to do, and I found out that the spiritual consequences are not pleasant.
-
@don-o
I live in Virginia, and I won't vote for Trump. Not under any circumstances.
Do I believe Hillary is evil? Without doubt. I believe the same of Trump, and when I say evil, I mean it in the spiritual, Biblical sense (or perhaps the genuine sense). I've seen the video in which he says he wouldn't stop the process of driving scissors into a newborn's skull. And I don't believe for one moment the man has changed.
I won't stand in front of Jesus and answer for that.
But if you don't vote for Chancellor Palpatine you are supporting Darth Sidious!
-
But if you don't vote for Chancellor Palpatine you are supporting Darth Sidious!
If this guy, McMullin, gets any traction (yeah, right), we can start telling Trump folks that a vote for Donald is a vote for Hillary.
-
But if you don't vote for Chancellor Palpatine you are supporting Darth Sidious!
General Zod would make Emperor Palpatine kneel before him. (and Darth Sidious, too... at the same time!)
-
Do I believe Hillary is evil? Without doubt. I believe the same of Trump, and when I say evil, I mean it in the spiritual, Biblical sense (or perhaps the genuine sense). I've seen the video in which he says he wouldn't stop the process of driving scissors into a newborn's skull. And I don't believe for one moment the man has changed.
I won't stand in front of Jesus and answer for that.
Ditto.
-
(http://cdn-users2.imagechef.com/sketchpadmeme/160813/memea0476c544d158b0e.jpg)
-
(http://cdn-users2.imagechef.com/sketchpadmeme/160813/memea0476c544d158b0e.jpg)
Yep! VERY poisonous snakes at that!
-
True in theory, perhaps, but not in practice.
Just look at the last at least 5 primary cycles: "Conservatism" has fallen to the point of extended bickering over which candidate is most deserving of "The Mantle of Reagan."
Where are the debates over conservative ideas? Where's the discussion of why conservative ideas are better than what's currently running the country? There's little or none of that anymore -- hasn't been since, maybe, GWB's first campaign. "Conservatism" as a movement is very sick.
Conservatism got hyphenated. It's hard to stay healthy when you are divided into subunits.
Instead of a single set of unifying principles, now you could be a conservative a la carte. One from column A, two from column B, would you like egg roll? It doesn't work that way. Conservatism was never meant to be chopped up into moral morsels and put on the philosophical buffet, it was a full meal.
No more than a person will function as designed if whole sections or vital organs are removed, will conservatism function if whole portions of the philosophy are severed. In either desperation to defeat the Marxist juggernaut that overran the Democrat Party, or moral laziness, Republicans decided it was allowable to be an 'exceptional' conservative (as in "I'm a conservative, except ___________ (fill in the blank with pet liberal position)). Note, the founders didn't say "...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these Life, or Liberty, or the pursuit of happiness--nope, all three were included together, and that was just the beginning. It isn't two out of three, but all of them. (One cannot support abortion, for instance, and make the grade). So, being conservative as a concept became a diluted and corrupted version of itself.
And that, too, is a fallacy. Politics is about personalities, just as much as it's about principles. Politics is about people dealing with one another, and those who don't play well with others generally don't succeed. Leadership, character, vision ... those are all personality things, not ideas; and in the political world they're indispensable.
Cruz didn't get along with those who would not stand against Obama and the Dems in the Senate, who were reneging on their oath of office to uphold and protect the Constitution, and selling out their constituents and the American People. To me, that's a virtue, not a fault, and I want someone with the sand to stand on principle and fight for that. I have little doubt that the likes of John Boehner 'got along' just fine and were invited to all the 'right' cocktail parties, but is that what they were supposed to be doing in DC?
Donald Trump isn't running on 'getting along with others', either, but that is different. Donald Trump's whole campaign, from the Wall, to the lies and deceptions about Cruz, to the series of polarizing attacks starting with something so little as calling his opponents names, to encouraging violence toward protesters, orchestrated booing, the only unity he proposes is 'us' (Trump supporters) vs the world, but most especially those who don't kiss the ring of Donald Trump. He rabidly attacks 'our own', but hasn't really reserved his vitriol (nor have a number of his supporters) for the opposition in this race, instead choosing to attack those who have refused to bend their knee to him within the GOP. He pays lip service to being an 'outsider' while schmoozing with the same people he allegedly wants to defeat (the 'establishment'), instead attacking those who were fighting them.
How do you consider getting what amounts to an angry mob to follow the lead torch "unity" or "playing well with others" when he even advocates voting out those conservatives who will not have endorsed him?
Silencing opposition right down to using internet trolls, fake twitter accounts, and dominating media may seem effective, but it isn't unifying, any more than the purges of Free Republic have produced "unity", or any other pogrom does. It isn't getting along with others, it is inciting a mob, declaring everyone who isn't kneeling before you the "enemy", and eliminating them, not unifying those who dissent behind common principles. Just because there is a crowd, doesn't even mean he's getting along, he has just pointed everyone at the same victim. The only problem is, he isn't even standing on principle, just the anger of frustrated and scared people. It is the unity of a lynch mob, with reason cast to the winds, an 'all who aren't with us must be eliminated' mentality, and "us" is defined by those who follow their 'dear leader', not who simply believe in something that transcends the individual.
There is not one damned thing conservative about that, when you consider the Constitution, the seminal purpose of this Republic was/is to protect the rights of individuals--including the right to disagree.
What ever happened to "I may not agree with what you said, but will defend to my dying breath your right to say it"? That whole idea, that concept of all having Rights, whether we agree with them or not has gone out the window of late. One thing is certain, Trump is not the embodiment of it; He's a fraud.
-
Well what about Diamond and Silk huh? They prove that Trump is making inroads with blacks.
Sorry, I have seen them as 'afroturfing' from day one. It may be 'catchy', it may work with people who watch a lot of sitcoms, but they are a gimmick, working a gig, whether they started as earnest supporters or were on the payroll somewhere from day one. Popularity='hits'=$$$! for 'internet sensations'.
I really don't see the epitomy of the "rich white man' being able to connect with the 'hood by himself.
-
Well what about Diamond and Silk huh? They prove that Trump is making inroads with blacks.
Sorry, I have seen them as 'afroturfing' from day one. It may be 'catchy', it may work with people who watch a lot of sitcoms, but they are a gimmick, working a gig, whether they started as earnest supporters or were on the payroll somewhere from day one. Popularity='hits'=$$$! for 'internet sensations'.
I really don't see the epitomy of the "rich white man' being able to connect with the 'hood by himself.
Google "cooning" that's how I've always taken them.
Just some sideshow entertainment on the Donald's caravan of fools.
-
Excellent discussion. One quibble, though.
Cruz didn't get along with those who would not stand against Obama and the Dems in the Senate, who were reneging on their oath of office to uphold and protect the Constitution, and selling out their constituents and the American People. To me, that's a virtue, not a fault, and I want someone with the sand to stand on principle and fight for that. I have little doubt that the likes of John Boehner 'got along' just fine and were invited to all the 'right' cocktail parties, but is that what they were supposed to be doing in DC?
It is certainly endlessly frustrating to see those guys give in to Obama time after time, apparently because they're afraid of and/or unable to carry the fight into the media. The question is, though: how might a man with leadership aspirations stiffen their spines? Not by pissing on their shoes, that's for sure. All that does is keep him on the outside, no matter how good his ideas might be. So, IMO, Cruz's intransigence looks to be his biggest problem. He's so certain he's right, that he's booted his chance at forming a coalition. And so he is ineffective in the Senate. He's young, though -- only two years into his term, and thus maybe too arrogant about his prospects. Perhaps he can learn a lesson.
There are ways to get things done among people with whom you have disagreements. Let's compare Cruz to Reagan -- the most effective conservative to have served as president.
Years ago I had a friend who said of Reagan, "you couldn't elect a more conservative man. There are a number of ways to read that sentence, and each of them is true in some way.
The thing is, although an undoubted conservative, Reagan wasn't the most conservative guy out there; and he was willing to be flexible in order to get things done. And Reagan made a point to get along with guys like Tip O'Neil, and even worked with him to a certain extent, to achieve results. Reagan knew what was important, and knew that in politics, getting closer to the desired end is generally better than moving farther away from it, even if you have to give something up in return.
He was the sort of guy who was willing to move the line a bit on every play -- but that required him to horse trade in various ways. His results were not uniformly conservative, but he had and kept his eyes on a couple of very big prizes (winning the cold war, tax cuts), and to make progress he knew he had to give in, in other areas (increased domestic spending, acceptance of large deficits).
Cruz has the principles down pat, I'll give him that. But he's not a dictator: he has to work with others to get things done. He doesn't do that ... and so he doesn't get things done.
-
Excellent discussion. One quibble, though.
It is certainly endlessly frustrating to see those guys give in to Obama time after time, apparently because they're afraid of and/or unable to carry the fight into the media. The question is, though: how might a man with leadership aspirations stiffen their spines? Not by pissing on their shoes, that's for sure. All that does is keep him on the outside, no matter how good his ideas might be. So, IMO, Cruz's intransigence looks to be his biggest problem. He's so certain he's right, that he's booted his chance at forming a coalition. And so he is ineffective in the Senate. He's young, though -- only two years into his term, and thus maybe too arrogant about his prospects. Perhaps he can learn a lesson.
There are ways to get things done among people with whom you have disagreements. Let's compare Cruz to Reagan -- the most effective conservative to have served as president.
Years ago I had a friend who said of Reagan, "you couldn't elect a more conservative man. There are a number of ways to read that sentence, and each of them is true in some way.
The thing is, although an undoubted conservative, Reagan wasn't the most conservative guy out there; and he was willing to be flexible in order to get things done. And Reagan made a point to get along with guys like Tip O'Neil, and even worked with him to a certain extent, to achieve results. Reagan knew what was important, and knew that in politics, getting closer to the desired end is generally better than moving farther away from it, even if you have to give something up in return.
He was the sort of guy who was willing to move the line a bit on every play -- but that required him to horse trade in various ways. His results were not uniformly conservative, but he had and kept his eyes on a couple of very big prizes (winning the cold war, tax cuts), and to make progress he knew he had to give in, in other areas (increased domestic spending, acceptance of large deficits).
Cruz has the principles down pat, I'll give him that. But he's not a dictator: he has to work with others to get things done. He doesn't do that ... and so he doesn't get things done.
While Cruz could learn more finesse, I don't think the comparison to Reagan is fair in one aspect.
That, not so much the principles of Cruz or Reagan, nor their methodology, but those they have adversarial relationships with.
While Reagan was not the GOP's intended, the GOP would not turn against him conspicuously. There was party solidarity.
By contrast, Cruz was doing the bidding, for the most part, of those who elected him, and the members of his own party who were often elected on promises of doing the same were fighting him. Not the Democrats (more on them in a second), but the Republicans. Reagan didn't have to face that opposition. Tip O'Neil was less of a Democrat by today's standards than McConnell or Boehner.
Also, as for the Democrats, the Democrats Reagan faced still, by and large, paid some sort of lip service to the Constitution and the USA. Yes, the inroads being made by the New Left into the Democrat Party were showing through that thin fabric here and there, but some semblance of patriotism was maintained in the face of the USSR and other Cold War adversaries.
Not so now, where the Democrats are all in against this country with Marxist philosophies and deals with our enemies in times of war, even with people connected to the Muslim Brotherhood tied in at vvery high levels in the Administration.
Cruz faced two enemies, a GOP at least as hostile as the Democrats Reagan faced, and the Democrats themselves, now a cabal of Marxists, special interests, and Islamic enablers.
Unfortunately, while Cruz stands slightly to the Right of Reagan, the rest of the political landscape has moved hard to the Left. To many of us who have not changed our principles, either, that stance Cruz has appeals. To those who have gone spiraling to the Left of Reagan, viewing Reagan as the epitome of the Right and moving 'toward the middle (to the Left)' from there, Cruz seems more extreme than he really is.