The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: ABX on September 14, 2016, 11:50:45 pm
-
Wednesday night on his radio program, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin called B.S. on Donald Trump’s new maternity leave entitlement program....
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/how-the-hell-can-we-live-with-ourselves-levin-explodes-at-trumptitlement-bs#sthash.jDwBa2Gf.dpuf
-
Trump: I can enact the democrat agenda faster than Clinton can.
-
The question used to be that Hitlary is a Marxist POS, but there might be a possibility that Donny might not be terrible. We now know with full certainty that Hitlary and Donny are equally as bad. There is not an issue of importance that they do not have parity on.
-
Mark should calm down .... and listen to Trump's speech at the Economic Club this Thursday.
And while he's waiting, he might try and get his hands on a calendar from the 21st century.
-
And while he's waiting, he might try and get his hands on a calendar from the 21st century.
Because the Constitution is just soooo 'out of date' and 'irrelevant' in this day and age right?
You Trump supporters truly are no different than Hillary's supporters.
Making constant excuses and justifications for big government Socialism.
-
Because the Constitution is just soooo 'out of date' and 'irrelevant' in this day and age right?
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?
Making constant excuses and justifications for big government Socialism.
How is lowering someone's federal taxes and expanding individual choice Socialism?
-
Mark should calm down .... and listen to Trump's speech at the Economic Club this Thursday.
And while he's waiting, he might try and get his hands on a calendar from the 21st century.
Does this mean we can take 'reduce onerous government mandates on private businesses' off the list of needed reforms as well?
-
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?
Wow
<ignore>
-
Re: 'How the hell can we live with ourselves?!’ Levin explodes at Trumptitlement 'BS'
Quite simple, Levin... I ain't the one voting for him. I sleep fine at night.
-
Quite simple, Levin... I ain't the one voting for him. I sleep fine at night.
Nodding in agreement.
-
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?
How is lowering someone's federal taxes and expanding individual choice Socialism?
Giving more taxpayer money to those who pay no taxes via the EITC IS expanding socialism.
-
Quite simple, Levin... I ain't the one voting for him. I sleep fine at night.
Ditto.
If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures, to quote Hamilton.
-
I see Levin is not loving his ride on the Trump Train. 000hehehehe
Probably on the back of that bus. He didn't prostrate himself right away.
-
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?
How is lowering someone's federal taxes and expanding individual choice Socialism?
It is quite simple.
since there is nothing in the constitution providing for child care, this is a 10th amendment issue,
EITC credits will be given to those who do not pay taxes now,or very little, thereby making it a socialistic type program, free money for having kids and taking time off.
It is a liberal position. No way around that.
A few more things that I have not seen mentioned:
There will be a new bureaucratic department set up of government employees to administer and over see all of this, all at taxpayer expense.
Has anyone heard how they plan to "prove" people who take this benefit are actually eligible?
Sure, there will be guidelines, but how will they be enforced, and who will enforce them?
It is as ripe for corruption as any other federal program is.
-
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?
How is lowering someone's federal taxes and expanding individual choice Socialism?
Trump's plan doesn't lower federal taxes, it merely redistributes wealth from one person to another person, solely for the purpose of purchasing the second person's vote, and it makes everyone worse off because the government inevitably wastes some of the money it takes from Peter on the way to paying Paul. Government always wastes money as compared to the private market; the question in every instance has to be whether the problem to be addressed is worth that extra cost. For example, maintaining an army for self-defense, and for asserting the nation's interests abroad, is, I think everyone can agree, worth the wealth wasted because government is maintaining the army, as was illustrated back in the 80s by the $600 hammers a contractor was charging the government for.
Trump's plan is just another standard-issue liberal nostrum for purchasing votes at the expense of the general welfare. It is standard issue socialism. Standard issue socialism is not worth the extra cost caused by government waste and inefficiency, not in the way that maintaining an army is worth the waste and inefficiency.
You recognized this back in 2012 when it was Obama vs. Romney, but now that your god Trump has exposed his true liberal core, you've tossed everything overboard in order to slurp up the liberal pablum he's spoon-feeding you.
There truly seems to be an inverse correlation between the rabidness of one's support for Trump and one's willingness to use the brains God gave one.
-
Mr. Levin, if we have to live with y'all, by golly, you're going to live with yourselves.
-
He's pandering to win an election. Just as he's pandered to cultural conservatives on abortion and religious liberty, even though he donated to Planned Parenthood and probably went 20 years without seeing the inside of a church.
He's the living embodiment of PT Barnum, counting on that sucker born every minute. Levin's just the latest sucker.
I'll say this - his child care proposals do seem to ring truer than the garbage he's been spewing for months to sucker conservatives. His daughter is apparently behind these initiatives and she doesn't hide the fact she's a NYC liberal.
-
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?
How is lowering someone's federal taxes and expanding individual choice Socialism?
The lack of understanding of what the Constitution is in your statement is astounding.
The Constitution is both a GRANT of specific powers and a strict set of limitations FROM the States TO the Federal government. The listing of things that the Constitution does not prohibit the Federal government from doing is limitless. The list of things that the Federal government is empowered to do IS the Constitution.
All powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution and not prohibited by it to the States "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" (see the Amendment X, I.S. Constitution).
So my question to you is, where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power to do what Trump proposes to do with child care at the Federal level?
-
So my question to you is, where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power to do what Trump proposes to do with child care at the Federal level?
The only conceivable grant of authority is the commerce clause, which the courts have stretched to become the all-purpose Federal power grab. The federal ERISA law, for example, regulates private pensions in all fifty states, and is justified on commerce clause grounds because it allows companies to operate across state lines and offer uniform benefits without regard to myriad and conflicting state laws.
-
The lack of understanding of what the Constitution is in your statement is astounding.
The Constitution is both a GRANT of specific powers and a strict set of limitations FROM the States TO the Federal government. The listing of things that the Constitution does not prohibit the Federal government from doing is limitless. The list of things that the Federal government is empowered to do IS the Constitution.
All powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution and not prohibited by it to the States "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" (see the Amendment X, I.S. Constitution).
So my question to you is, where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power to do what Trump proposes to do with child care at the Federal level?
That's what leapt out at me too. How can one be so unaware of what is in the Constitution and call oneself a conservative? Hopefully @Right_in_Virginia will answer your question. I would really like to understand how that works.
-
Levin worked for President Reagan, he always makes us know that very well.
We love Reagan but from his amnesty and on down the line, we can nitpick at all politicians.
-
Levin worked for President Reagan, he always makes us know that very well.
We love Reagan but from his amnesty and on down the line, we can nitpick at all politicians.
Was there a relevant point in there?
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsZQKFLUIAAeNqQ.jpg)
-
Was there a relevant point in there?
Every time I hear about "Reagan's Amnesty" I write off the dishonesty.
Reagan's amnesty was a very small number. Congress turned it into an endless flood of millions.
-
Trump's proposal also seems close to the initiative in some countries to encourage their women to have babies. I want to read what some prominent pro-lifers think of this.
-
Every time I hear about "Reagan's Amnesty" I write off the dishonesty.
Reagan's amnesty was a very small number. Congress turned it into an endless flood of millions.
I didn't want to assume that @TomSea was just trying to deflect from the actual topic of the thread. Perhaps I misunderstood his point?
-
Quite simple, Levin... I ain't the one voting for him. I sleep fine at night.
My first thought.
Why did Mark say he was voting for a socialist in the first place? He knows who Trump is. Where's his backbone?
-
My first thought.
Why did Mark say he was voting for a socialist in the first place? He knows who Trump is. Where's his backbone?
Right!
-
My first thought.
Why did Mark say he was voting for a socialist in the first place? He knows who Trump is. Where's his backbone?
His backbone? I don't think that's a reasonable criticism. Levin has held out against a torrent of criticism and bile and only very reluctantly and very late in the cycle did he say that he would vote for Trump. He is not and never has been a "Trump supporter".
It's a simple calculation: Trump=probably bad; Clinton=really, really bad.
-
My first thought.
Why did Mark say he was voting for a socialist in the first place? He knows who Trump is. Where's his backbone?
I am not as hard on Levin as others will be... I can understand those who will inevitably pull for the big rhinestone 'R' - Lord knows, I was there for years. But Levin is disappointing - It isn't that he ought to know better - He DOES know better.
Even so, like so many others (and more to come)...
Unlike my unbridled disgust at those like Coulter - psychophants... Ingram is one I'd have never thought it of.
-
His backbone? I don't think that's a reasonable criticism. Levin has held out against a torrent of criticism and bile and only very reluctantly and very late in the cycle did he say that he would vote for Trump. He is not and never has been a "Trump supporter".
It's a simple calculation: Trump=probably bad; Clinton=really, really bad.
Perhaps it's not fair. But Mark did give in and say he would vote for Trump, knowing full well that Trump didn't have a single Conservative belief.
I just don't see how he can be so dismayed when yet another proof of Trump's liberalism comes out.
He's going to have to live with himself for his choice. I happen to think it was, for him - a publicly known Constitutionalist - a weak decision to decide to vote for Trump. I suppose I would have respected him more had he just voted quietly, and not proclaimed his decision on the air.
But this is just an opinion. He's definitely not a Rush-like turncoat on principle, but I think he made a bad call.
-
Every time I hear about "Reagan's Amnesty" I write off the dishonesty.
Reagan's amnesty was a very small number. Congress turned it into an endless flood of millions.
Not really the point of it... Reagan and congressional leaders stood right there and promised the American people that their amnesty deal was a one-off: ON THEIR WORD. Never again.
I wasn't for it then, and I still don't think it was right - but by golly, I expect them to hold to their promise.
-
I am not as hard on Levin as others will be... I can understand those who will inevitably pull for the big rhinestone 'R' - Lord knows, I was there for years. But Levin is disappointing - It isn't that he ought to know better - He DOES know better.
Even so, like so many others (and more to come)...
Unlike my unbridled disgust at those like Coulter - psychophants... Ingram is one I'd have never thought it of.
I'm definitely not putting Levin in the same category as the "psychophants" (I like that!), but I'm still disappointed that someone who knows and loves the Constitution like Mark does, said publicly that he was going to vote for him anyway.
Maybe it's just because he gave the trolls and idolaters ammunition. He put himself in the same category as those who wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it knocked them upside the head..... a vote for socialism.
-
Maybe it's just because he gave the trolls and idolaters ammunition.
And they DO strut and preen so...
He put himself in the same category as those who wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it knocked them upside the head..... a vote for socialism.
The same happened with Romney (not Levin per se) - A good portion of the 'conservative media' wound up in the sack with him too... Not that it mattered in the end.
If I disowned everyone who wound up too weak to stand, I'd have gone through the most of them years past.
What is more important to me is to emphasize those who do not falter - Among these stalwarts (yourself included), I find the best of companions.
The rest are to be expected - and for the most part, pitied for their insipid nature when the rubber truly meets the road.
-
And they DO strut and preen so...
The same happened with Romney (not Levin per se) - A good portion of the 'conservative media' wound up in the sack with him too... Not that it mattered in the end.
If I disowned everyone who wound up too weak to stand, I'd have gone through the most of them years past.
What is more important to me is to emphasize those who do not falter - Among these stalwarts (yourself included), I find the best of companions.
The rest are to be expected - and for the most part, pitied for their insipid nature when the rubber truly meets the road.
I'll admit to being on the wrong side of the debate in the fairly recent past (voting for McCain and Romney, knowing their faults). While always believing fully in the Constitution, I had given up that any President could ever live up to them so always voted "R." I had given up on the small government ideal, so factored it out in my decision.
This time.... with Trump......... I can go no farther because he is so openly and blatantly leftist, and still no one seems to care. While he's lying about some things, he still is declaring his liberalism, and watching the contortions his lackeys go to in order to excuse everything has just been astounding....... and disturbing.
He's not even a "moderate" Republican. He's full out Democrat, and still his followers, famous and not, proclaim fealty to him.
Before this election, I was a Conservative Republican. Now I don't believe that such a thing exists. And my belief that a return to Constitutional principles is the only thing that can keep America alive has grown stronger.
I'm not going back.
-
I'll admit to being on the wrong side of the debate in the fairly recent past (voting for McCain and Romney, knowing their faults). While always believing fully in the Constitution, I had given up that any President could ever live up to them so always voted "R." I had given up on the small government ideal, so factored it out in my decision.
I have been fighting this fight at least that far back - I barely voted for Dubya the first time through, and the second, with his calling me a nativist, and with the spending, was a very touchy business.
McCain is an avowed enemy of Conservatives. Romney is just as liberal as his daddy (that particular apple didn't fall far from the horse). I flatly could not vote for either of them, and Palin was less than effective, at least with me.
I think you would have found the level of acrimony was almost as bad in those races had you been as insistent then.
Before this election, I was a Conservative Republican. Now I don't believe that such a thing exists. And my belief that a return to Constitutional principles is the only thing that can keep America alive has grown stronger.
I'm not going back.
Steady onward - There are far more of us than there are of them - I swear, we really need another Limbaugh 'See, I Told You So' moment.
All of this is just bread ad circuses. REAL damage will only be done if Trump actually wins the election... and especially so with a mandate. But that has been the case for the last two election cycles anyway. If the GOPe ever does succeed at winning with a liberal, it will be a useless venue for Conservatives thereafter. The comes the long work of lifting up another party - ad with little time to succeed.
But if he loses...
-
I'll admit to being on the wrong side of the debate in the fairly recent past (voting for McCain and Romney, knowing their faults). While always believing fully in the Constitution, I had given up that any President could ever live up to them so always voted "R." I had given up on the small government ideal, so factored it out in my decision.
This time.... with Trump......... I can go no farther because he is so openly and blatantly leftist, and still no one seems to care. While he's lying about some things, he still is declaring his liberalism, and watching the contortions his lackeys go to in order to excuse everything has just been astounding....... and disturbing.
He's not even a "moderate" Republican. He's full out Democrat, and still his followers, famous and not, proclaim fealty to him.
Before this election, I was a Conservative Republican. Now I don't believe that such a thing exists. And my belief that a return to Constitutional principles is the only thing that can keep America alive has grown stronger.
I'm not going back.
My only quibble with these comments is that when we get to the point of voting for a seriously under-qualified candidate we've already lost. We know that the Dems are never going to put forth a candidate that we could agree with, so it's the R or nothing. And, our R's have been nothings for some time now.
And, yes, I voted for Romney and McCain too. Very reluctantly, for what it's worth - probably nothing.
-
My only quibble with these comments is that when we get to the point of voting for a seriously under-qualified candidate we've already lost. We know that the Dems are never going to put forth a candidate that we could agree with, so it's the R or nothing. And, our R's have been nothings for some time now.
And continuing to vote for those nothings is about as effective as giving a drug addict money to stay sober.
-
My only quibble with these comments is that when we get to the point of voting for a seriously under-qualified candidate we've already lost. We know that the Dems are never going to put forth a candidate that we could agree with, so it's the R or nothing. And, our R's have been nothings for some time now.
And, yes, I voted for Romney and McCain too. Very reluctantly, for what it's worth - probably nothing.
I suppose it's only quibbling, because we clearly are in agreement with all the basics, but I believed (and still believe) that there would have been differences between a McCain or Romney administration and the horror we've gotten with Obama..... so I guess I wouldn't call either of them "nothings." (I know others strongly disagree with that).
This time we are getting a carbon copy of Hillary with Trump. He doesn't believe a single thing we do about conservative principles. He doesn't believe ONE thing I believe. That wasn't true with either McCain or Romney....... as bad as they were.
-
I voted with pride and enthusiasm for both McCain and Romney. Sure, neither agreed with me on all issues, but each was recognizably conservative, especially on issues that matter most to me, and - MOST IMPORTANT - each was a distinguished and honorable man.
Trump's a complete mess, lacks honor and even common decency, exhibits an alarming degree of narcissism and megalomania, and appeals to racialism and racists just as surely as Al Sharpton does.
The fact that he might make better SCOTUS picks than Hillary would doesn't cause me to disregard what my brain tells me - the man's a dangerous flippin' menace.
-
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?
How is lowering someone's federal taxes and expanding individual choice Socialism?
It doesn't have to. Unless it is specifically stated as a power of the federal government please see amendments 9 and 10.
-
The fact that he might make better SCOTUS picks than Hillary would doesn't cause me to disregard what my brain tells me - the man's a dangerous flippin' menace.
How can we be sure of that now?
If he is willing to make proposals outside the original scope of the federal government, why would he nominate judges that would place limits on that power?
-
I'll admit to being on the wrong side of the debate in the fairly recent past (voting for McCain and Romney, knowing their faults). While always believing fully in the Constitution, I had given up that any President could ever live up to them so always voted "R." I had given up on the small government ideal, so factored it out in my decision.
This time.... with Trump......... I can go no farther because he is so openly and blatantly leftist, and still no one seems to care. While he's lying about some things, he still is declaring his liberalism, and watching the contortions his lackeys go to in order to excuse everything has just been astounding....... and disturbing.
He's not even a "moderate" Republican. He's full out Democrat, and still his followers, famous and not, proclaim fealty to him.
Before this election, I was a Conservative Republican. Now I don't believe that such a thing exists. And my belief that a return to Constitutional principles is the only thing that can keep America alive has grown stronger.
I'm not going back.
It is much the same here. Conservatives will have to regroup under a different banner, a difficult thing to do in the midst of battle. While I would not exclude those who have held their noses and voted Republican in the past (as have most of us), this time it is different. Then we had a hope of some conservative scraps from a moderate table. Now the dishes are all from the left side of the menu.
The reluctant I understand, the enthusiastic supporters of this candidate can dig their own hole (as they have), they aren't sharing mine. I am not so surprised that, in the end, we are few. People like Rush made 'conservative' a popular brand, but like Harley Davidson, there are far more t-shirts and baubles than riders or bikes. This is one of those times which weeds out the wannabes, those more enamored of appearances than principles. A few will follow reluctantly out of desperation. Small wonder so many eagerly embraced someone who is far more image than substance.
Those of us who stand on principle will stand together, back to back if need be, and continue to fight as we can for the Constitutional Republic that we embrace, either by birthright or as newcomers who recognize the wisdom inherent in the form of government our Founders intended, and the beauty of the Liberty that government was to leave unmolested.
If we count those who reluctantly follow that banner out of fear of being completely disenfranchised, I think we are far greater in number than most want to admit. Those who were strongly for Liberty in the original fight were only a third of the population, and those who fought a mere three percent.
So be of good cheer, the conflict is far from over, and the lines are just getting sorted out. During the Revolution, the patriots lost most of their battles, but won the war in the end.
-
People like Rush made 'conservative' a popular brand, but like Harley Davidson, there are far more t-shirts and baubles than riders or bikes.
I now look at Rush Limbaugh the way I do pastors and preachers who have embraced Chrislam and Homosexual marriage and promote it from their pulpits.
They are apostates to the truth - and I no longer regard anything they have to say as worthy of consideration.
They have defiled themselves.
Levin, so far - while I disagree with his choice - has not engaged in pushing Trump or belittling those of us who refuse to support or vote for him.
The moment he does - he will find one less listener and subscriber.
-
It is much the same here. Conservatives will have to regroup under a different banner, a difficult thing to do in the midst of battle. While I would not exclude those who have held their noses and voted Republican in the past (as have most of us), this time it is different. Then we had a hope of some conservative scraps from a moderate table. Now the dishes are all from the left side of the menu.
The reluctant I understand, the enthusiastic supporters of this candidate can dig their own hole (as they have), they aren't sharing mine. I am not so surprised that, in the end, we are few. People like Rush made 'conservative' a popular brand, but like Harley Davidson, there are far more t-shirts and baubles than riders or bikes. This is one of those times which weeds out the wannabes, those more enamored of appearances than principles. A few will follow reluctantly out of desperation. Small wonder so many eagerly embraced someone who is far more image than substance.
Those of us who stand on principle will stand together, back to back if need be, and continue to fight as we can for the Constitutional Republic that we embrace, either by birthright or as newcomers who recognize the wisdom inherent in the form of government our Founders intended, and the beauty of the Liberty that government was to leave unmolested.
If we count those who reluctantly follow that banner out of fear of being completely disenfranchised, I think we are far greater in number than most want to admit. Those who were strongly for Liberty in the original fight were only a third of the population, and those who fought a mere three percent.
So be of good cheer, the conflict is far from over, and the lines are just getting sorted out. During the Revolution, the patriots lost most of their battles, but won the war in the end.
Thanks for the encouragement @Smokin Joe . I hope you are right in saying we are far greater in number than most want to admit. Sometimes I feel like you could put us all in an NFL football stadium we are so few.
I guess we'll find out what happens after this debacle of an election, and see who's left standing.
All I know is that there won't be many so-called conservative talking heads among us..... they may be wearing the T shirt, but they don't own a bike.
-
I see Levin is not loving his ride on the Trump Train. 000hehehehe
(http://www.glorioustrainwrecks.com/TrainWreck_clean.jpg)
-
And my belief that a return to Constitutional principles is the only thing that can keep America alive has grown stronger.
I'm not going back.
I often think George F. Will was right when he wrote, about three decades ago, that the only law that should
be written and passed by the next Congress and signed by the next president should read: Resolved: No
law written by Congress and signed by the president shall be considered legal and binding until every one
of them can prove he or she has read it at least once.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't work today. We're about to choose between a pair of presidential candidates, and
consecrate a Congress, whose ability to read, never mind to think, is extremely debatable.
-
Levin worked for President Reagan, he always makes us know that very well.
We love Reagan but from his amnesty and on down the line, we can nitpick at all politicians.
But MOOOOOMMMM everybody is doing it! Didn't you try this the other day?
-
Every time I hear about "Reagan's Amnesty" I write off the dishonesty.
Reagan's amnesty was a very small number. Congress turned it into an endless flood of millions.
Reagan also learned the dishonesty of the "will give you something you want if you give us something we want" democrat ploy. Why we have been repeating that mistake over and over again is beyond me.
-
Common theme in reading the Hate Always Squad around the internet. Very long on infantile insults and childish bile lace tirades and completely vacant of any sort of rational, reasoned argument against Trump.
Use to be Conservatives thought, Leftists felt. Sad to see that so many supposed "Conservatives" are actually no different the than Leftists they claim to scorn.
-
Because the Constitution is just soooo 'out of date' and 'irrelevant' in this day and age right?
You Trump supporters truly are no different than Hillary's supporters.
Making constant excuses and justifications for big government Socialism.
TrumpoCrats. Can't live with em.....can't.....well, you know.
-
I now look at Rush Limbaugh the way I do pastors and preachers who have embraced Chrislam and Homosexual marriage and promote it from their pulpits.
They are apostates to the truth - and I no longer regard anything they have to say as worthy of consideration.
They have defiled themselves.
Levin, so far - while I disagree with his choice - has not engaged in pushing Trump or belittling those of us who refuse to support or vote for him.
The moment he does - he will find one less listener and subscriber.
Ditto that.
-
Perhaps it's not fair. But Mark did give in and say he would vote for Trump, knowing full well that Trump didn't have a single Conservative belief.
I just don't see how he can be so dismayed when yet another proof of Trump's liberalism comes out.
He's going to have to live with himself for his choice. I happen to think it was, for him - a publicly known Constitutionalist - a weak decision to decide to vote for Trump. I suppose I would have respected him more had he just voted quietly, and not proclaimed his decision on the air.
But this is just an opinion. He's definitely not a Rush-like turncoat on principle, but I think he made a bad call.
And considering.....that we still have 53 days until the election in which Trump can unleash yet more of his typically liberal policies.....I daresay that Levin will wish that he had done just that.
-
How can we be sure of that now?
If he is willing to make proposals outside the original scope of the federal government, why would he nominate judges that would place limits on that power?
He wouldn't. He would nominate liberal judges that he figured would rubber-stamp any and all of those liberal policies.
-
Common theme in reading the Hate Always Squad around the internet. Very long on infantile insults and childish bile lace tirades and completely vacant of any sort of rational, reasoned argument against Trump.
Trump is a social and fiscal liberal and a dishonest, immoral man and I will never vote for him.
Find something irrational in that, you cannot.
-
Guess who gets to be put back on IGNORE.
Spammer Johnnie........... still only one note, I see.
"Hate, hate, hate"....... **nononono*
-
And considering.....that we still have 53 days until the election in which Trump can unleash yet more of his typically liberal policies.....I daresay that Levin will wish that he had done just that.
I have a feeling Levin is already regretting his decision to say he's voting for Trump.
And you're absolutely right. He's going to regret it more and more in the next 2 months.
-
Common theme in reading the Hate Always Squad around the internet. Very long on infantile insults and childish bile lace tirades and completely vacant of any sort of rational, reasoned argument against Trump.
Use to be Conservatives thought, Leftists felt. Sad to see that so many supposed "Conservatives" are actually no different the than Leftists they claim to scorn.
You're projecting again.
We're not the ones rabidly supporting a lifelong NY Liberal Democrat running as your party's nominee and making ridiculous excuses for Trump's liberal statist proposals.
-
Common theme in reading the Hate Always Squad around the internet. Very long on infantile insults and childish bile lace tirades and completely vacant of any sort of rational, reasoned argument against Trump.
Use to be Conservatives thought, Leftists felt. Sad to see that so many supposed "Conservatives" are actually no different the than Leftists they claim to scorn.
Actually, it was Trump who harnessed the anger of the frustrated class in America, sold himself by babbling about a 'wall' and deporting people (positions he has walked back from). There were numerous other primary candidates who did not rely on emotions, but reason and logic to bring in their supporters, and reason and logic did. Trump, not so much. His supporters remain angry, and even spew that hatred of others who are not on board with their candidate still, well after the primary elections are over. They equally harbor obvious enmity toward Cruz, especially over the speech Cruz gave st the convention, complete with WWE style interruption with Trump's entrance during the last part of the speech, and a well orchestrated bevy of boos and threats, the latter which were delivered as Cruz said 'vote your conscience', for the person whom you think will best uphold the Constitution.
IMHO, there was nothing to boo there, the entire scripted (by Trump's people) response to Cruz came off with all the reason and rationality of a Professional Wrestling runup to a grudge match.
Trump's people had had a copy of Cruz' speech for days, Cruz didn't leave anything out, and his was original, not a flashback to a speech given by Michelle Obama.
But you want reasons? Let's start in Iowa, so we'll ignore the numerous bankruptcies by Trump, the deals where he paid donated to politicians for access to the halls of power and favors, and deals with the Saudis, heck, we'll even ignore him trying to hire the Lady's attorney away from her during that little Kelo decision kerfuffle, so he could have him defend property owners from a competitor's attempt to use the same eminent domain SCOTUS decision to obtain some property he wanted. And we'll ignore all the Liberal statements about gun control, Hillary as POTUS, backing DeBlasio, etc., etc., etc.
Let's just wipe that slate clean and start with Iowa, without the baggage of three trophy brides, and the ego that mandates his name be prominently displayed on everything from his helicopter to his buildings to his other stuff (but not on the outside of his suits, Heche en Mexico).
In Iowa (yep, we're getting there), within a couple of hours after Cruz had said he'd end the Renewable Fuels mandate, (which requires a fixed amount of Ethanol be mixed into motor fuels in the US, no matter how much gasoline is or isn't sold), Trump said he'd not only increase the mandate but use the EPA to the fullest extent of the law to enforce it. What happened in between? Governor Branstad of Iowa said that because Cruz would end the ethanol mandate (The Gov's son is/was an ethanol industry lobbyist), Cruz would have to be defeated 'whatever it takes'.
Trump, the guy who ran away from Mehgan Kelly after making a crack about bleeding out of whatevers to do a veterans' benefit he had planned for a whole 24 hours, stuck his finger in the wind and came out all for polluting our fuel and costing untold millions of dollars in repairs, ruined engines, and perhaps lives lost (ever get stuck offshore in a squall in a small boat because your motor wouldn't start?) to toady up to the ethanol lobby.
Wow. What an outsider. NOT. Opportunist and crony capitalist, at best.
If ethanol is so great, let the market decide. If people think it works better, or feel some environmental need, they will buy it. In the meantime, ethanol mixed into motor fuels costs about 10% of mileage, attracts water in fuel systems causing corrosion, damages fuel systems in small engines, two cycle engines (chainsaws, leaf blowers, weed eaters, outboard motors, and some motorcycles), damages other small engines (4-stroke) from garden tractors to generators and even more outboard motors) and damages fuel systems in older and classic vehicles and 4-stroke motorcycles. In short, the stuff costs the unsuspecting or those who cannot obtain no ethanol fuel a fortune in repairs and downtime, and on occasion puts people in potentially life threatening situations because engines fail at critical times. The arguments against mandating ethanol are many. Full disclosure, I work in the oil industry as a geologist, not that that has any effect on either chemistry or thermodynamics, ethanol is what it is and has the effects it has, independent of what I do for a living.)
But he went beyond all that saying he'd use the EPA to enforce an increased mandate to the fullest extent of the law.
I don't know whether to attribute that EPA comment to grandstanding, prevarication, or true belief (which is possible with his recent guff about 'climate change'). But here is the problem with the EPA:
The EPA, arguably, has done more damage to American industry than any other Federal Agency, including moving-target emissions standards for point sources such as power plants: the reason Coal-fired power generation is being shut down--no sooner than one expensive shutdown and re-fit is done to bring a facility into compliance does the EPA come out with another standard requiring more of the same. You can't run a business if it is shut down and you have to put money into (again) remodeling to meet a new standard.
CAFE standards (increases cost, reduces durability of vehicles), and may affect survivability in accidents.
Not to mention pollution done by the EPA (Gold King Mine effluent release, for just one) and the assertion of dominion over everything from rain water to Carbon Dioxide to the low spots in your lawn.
This is an agency which needs to be severely reined in, cut back, and reduced in scope and power if ever the industry in the US is going to recover. It's regulations sent manufacturers here offshore where they found cheap labor, too, but much more reasonable and stable regulations about not only what they could emit, but who would be held liable for it.
Yet here was the guy who said he was going to "Make America Great Again" stumping for increasing the power of the very agency which has shut down or forced out American industry.
Now, if that isn't rational enough for you, let's bring the problem home to your pocket. If you use fuel, whether you have the Ethanol blend or can shell out the extra 20-25% for real gasoline, burn diesel, whatever, you may have noticed that prices dropped in the last couple of years.
If one process could be blamed for this, in conjunction with horizontal drilling techniques, it is the process of hydraulic fracturing (AKA: "Fraccing" or "Fracking") Gasoline went from nearly $5 per gallon to half that or less, depending on where you are, and you can thank those of us in the industry who drilled the wells, put them on line by fraccing them, manage to get oil to market despite the blatant hostility of the EPA and other agencies of the Federal Government.
That selfsame EPA has waged war on fraccing, unsuccessfully, I might add, because the process itself doesn't harm anything. No polluted groundwater (unless someone spills something), turns out the natural gas in that tap water was there before anyone fracced a well within a hundred miles (although if I had methane coming out of my water well, I'd have figured out how to separate it, used the pressure tank for my water supply as a compressor for the gas, put a dryer in the line and , and a regulator and a low pressure shutoff, and be using it to cook with at a minimum, if not for heat and the refrigerator, too).
But enough about the EPA, The Donald is against fracking. Between the alcohol blend and the predictable result that rapidly depleting horizontal well production will bring increases in fuel costs and more money in the pockets of terror sponsoring organizations, your fuel is going to cost more if Mr. Trump gets his way.
Then, after Iowa, we get into the serial, coordinated, and incontinent prevarication attacks on the character, wife, and family of other candidates. Known untruths were repeated ad infinitum by the Trump camp, including the appellation "lyin' Ted", as justification for these attacks.
Tump went ballistic when Liz Mair's Make America Awesome PAC (Pro-Rubio, anti-Trump, NOT pro-Cruz) ran an ad with a GQ stock photo that was used as the cover image for the magazine overseas, of Mrs. Trump wearing mostly air. The image could not have been new to Mr. or Mrs Trump. I am sure he was aware of it. He is a billionaire, and would routinely vett anyone he wanted to marry, just to avoid golddiggers.
When the ad came out, Cruz said "That's not one of ours.", disavowing the ad.
Despite that, and without getting the facts (or worse, full well knowing them), Trump launched a vicious attack on Heidi Cruz. When the facts were made known, despite disinformation trying to tie Liz Mair's PAC to Cruz (not the case, Mair was not pro-Cruz, either), Trump redoubled the attacks on Heidi.
Let's break that down, rationally. He attacked the wrong people, without finding out who was responsible for ad (or knowing damned well they were innocent). When it was disclosed who was responsible for the ad, he lied about that (to cover his ass?) and continued to viciously attack the wife of another candidate, the whole time calling that candidate a liar. When the truth came out, the response was that Cruz hadn't disavowed the attack forcefully enough. What part of "not one of ours" is so difficult?
Let's take that into the geopolitical arena, shall we? A terrorist attack is made on the US. Assuming the attack came from country A, 'The Donald' orders a retaliatory strike on that Country.
Oops, spectral data indicate the physics package in the initial attack came from Country B.
The Donald lies about the origins of the attack, says they were really only a front for country A over at Country B, and orders a second, follow-up attack on Country A.
That is what those actions taken during the campaign would look like on a global scale, with the added plus of strategic weapons, and without the entire planet coming down on the US because of that incompetence and newly earned distrust.
I'm going to stop here, partly because i doubt you have read this far, partly because I have other things to do with my day. But there are more reasons to not find Trump acceptable for the job, from his latest embrace of an entitlement program possibly larger in scope (and expense) than the Great Society, to walking back his immigration stance, to faltering on the Wall before the first brick is laid, to an even bigger Obamacare, to a general return to the liberal positions of his younger days, to talk of funding all the good things done by an outfit which custom aborts babies to sell the parts for profit.
Frankly, I don't see much conservative about the man, nor desirable traits for someone I would want near the nuclear 'football' and representing this country as ostensible the leader of the free world.
I am sure others would be happy to weigh in with their reasons, too.
-
Actually, it was Trump who harnessed the anger of the frustrated class in America, sold himself by babbling about a 'wall' and deporting people (positions he has walked back from). There were numerous other primary candidates who did not rely on emotions, but reason and logic to bring in their supporters, and reason and logic did. Trump, not so much. His supporters remain angry, and even spew that hatred of others who are not on board with their candidate still, well after the primary elections are over. They equally harbor obvious enmity toward Cruz, especially over the speech Cruz gave st the convention, complete with WWE style interruption with Trump's entrance during the last part of the speech, and a well orchestrated bevy of boos and threats, the latter which were delivered as Cruz said 'vote your conscience', for the person whom you think will best uphold the Constitution.
IMHO, there was nothing to boo there, the entire scripted (by Trump's people) response to Cruz came off with all the reason and rationality of a Professional Wrestling runup to a grudge match.
Trump's people had had a copy of Cruz' speech for days, Cruz didn't leave anything out, and his was original, not a flashback to a speech given by Michelle Obama.
But you want reasons? Let's start in Iowa, so we'll ignore the numerous bankruptcies by Trump, the deals where he paid donated to politicians for access to the halls of power and favors, and deals with the Saudis, heck, we'll even ignore him trying to hire the Lady's attorney away from her during that little Kelo decision kerfuffle, so he could have him defend property owners from a competitor's attempt to use the same eminent domain SCOTUS decision to obtain some property he wanted. And we'll ignore all the Liberal statements about gun control, Hillary as POTUS, backing DeBlasio, etc., etc., etc.
Let's just wipe that slate clean and start with Iowa, without the baggage of three trophy brides, and the ego that mandates his name be prominently displayed on everything from his helicopter to his buildings to his other stuff (but not on the outside of his suits, Heche en Mexico).
In Iowa (yep, we're getting there), within a couple of hours after Cruz had said he'd end the Renewable Fuels mandate, (which requires a fixed amount of Ethanol be mixed into motor fuels in the US, no matter how much gasoline is or isn't sold), Trump said he'd not only increase the mandate but use the EPA to the fullest extent of the law to enforce it. What happened in between? Governor Branstad of Iowa said that because Cruz would end the ethanol mandate (The Gov's son is/was an ethanol industry lobbyist), Cruz would have to be defeated 'whatever it takes'.
Trump, the guy who ran away from Mehgan Kelly after making a crack about bleeding out of whatevers to do a veterans' benefit he had planned for a whole 24 hours, stuck his finger in the wind and came out all for polluting our fuel and costing untold millions of dollars in repairs, ruined engines, and perhaps lives lost (ever get stuck offshore in a squall in a small boat because your motor wouldn't start?) to toady up to the ethanol lobby.
Wow. What an outsider. NOT. Opportunist and crony capitalist, at best.
If ethanol is so great, let the market decide. If people think it works better, or feel some environmental need, they will buy it. In the meantime, ethanol mixed into motor fuels costs about 10% of mileage, attracts water in fuel systems causing corrosion, damages fuel systems in small engines, two cycle engines (chainsaws, leaf blowers, weed eaters, outboard motors, and some motorcycles), damages other small engines (4-stroke) from garden tractors to generators and even more outboard motors) and damages fuel systems in older and classic vehicles and 4-stroke motorcycles. In short, the stuff costs the unsuspecting or those who cannot obtain no ethanol fuel a fortune in repairs and downtime, and on occasion puts people in potentially life threatening situations because engines fail at critical times. The arguments against mandating ethanol are many. Full disclosure, I work in the oil industry as a geologist, not that that has any effect on either chemistry or thermodynamics, ethanol is what it is and has the effects it has, independent of what I do for a living.)
But he went beyond all that saying he'd use the EPA to enforce an increased mandate to the fullest extent of the law.
I don't know whether to attribute that EPA comment to grandstanding, prevarication, or true belief (which is possible with his recent guff about 'climate change'). But here is the problem with the EPA:
The EPA, arguably, has done more damage to American industry than any other Federal Agency, including moving-target emissions standards for point sources such as power plants: the reason Coal-fired power generation is being shut down--no sooner than one expensive shutdown and re-fit is done to bring a facility into compliance does the EPA come out with another standard requiring more of the same. You can't run a business if it is shut down and you have to put money into (again) remodeling to meet a new standard.
CAFE standards (increases cost, reduces durability of vehicles), and may affect survivability in accidents.
Not to mention pollution done by the EPA (Gold King Mine effluent release, for just one) and the assertion of dominion over everything from rain water to Carbon Dioxide to the low spots in your lawn.
This is an agency which needs to be severely reined in, cut back, and reduced in scope and power if ever the industry in the US is going to recover. It's regulations sent manufacturers here offshore where they found cheap labor, too, but much more reasonable and stable regulations about not only what they could emit, but who would be held liable for it.
Yet here was the guy who said he was going to "Make America Great Again" stumping for increasing the power of the very agency which has shut down or forced out American industry.
Now, if that isn't rational enough for you, let's bring the problem home to your pocket. If you use fuel, whether you have the Ethanol blend or can shell out the extra 20-25% for real gasoline, burn diesel, whatever, you may have noticed that prices dropped in the last couple of years.
If one process could be blamed for this, in conjunction with horizontal drilling techniques, it is the process of hydraulic fracturing (AKA: "Fraccing" or "Fracking") Gasoline went from nearly $5 per gallon to half that or less, depending on where you are, and you can thank those of us in the industry who drilled the wells, put them on line by fraccing them, manage to get oil to market despite the blatant hostility of the EPA and other agencies of the Federal Government.
That selfsame EPA has waged war on fraccing, unsuccessfully, I might add, because the process itself doesn't harm anything. No polluted groundwater (unless someone spills something), turns out the natural gas in that tap water was there before anyone fracced a well within a hundred miles (although if I had methane coming out of my water well, I'd have figured out how to separate it, used the pressure tank for my water supply as a compressor for the gas, put a dryer in the line and , and a regulator and a low pressure shutoff, and be using it to cook with at a minimum, if not for heat and the refrigerator, too).
But enough about the EPA, The Donald is against fracking. Between the alcohol blend and the predictable result that rapidly depleting horizontal well production will bring increases in fuel costs and more money in the pockets of terror sponsoring organizations, your fuel is going to cost more if Mr. Trump gets his way.
Then, after Iowa, we get into the serial, coordinated, and incontinent prevarication attacks on the character, wife, and family of other candidates. Known untruths were repeated ad infinitum by the Trump camp, including the appellation "lyin' Ted", as justification for these attacks.
Tump went ballistic when Liz Mair's Make America Awesome PAC (Pro-Rubio, anti-Trump, NOT pro-Cruz) ran an ad with a GQ stock photo that was used as the cover image for the magazine overseas, of Mrs. Trump wearing mostly air. The image could not have been new to Mr. or Mrs Trump. I am sure he was aware of it. He is a billionaire, and would routinely vett anyone he wanted to marry, just to avoid golddiggers.
When the ad came out, Cruz said "That's not one of ours.", disavowing the ad.
Despite that, and without getting the facts (or worse, full well knowing them), Trump launched a vicious attack on Heidi Cruz. When the facts were made known, despite disinformation trying to tie Liz Mair's PAC to Cruz (not the case, Mair was not pro-Cruz, either), Trump redoubled the attacks on Heidi.
Let's break that down, rationally. He attacked the wrong people, without finding out who was responsible for ad (or knowing damned well they were innocent). When it was disclosed who was responsible for the ad, he lied about that (to cover his ass?) and continued to viciously attack the wife of another candidate, the whole time calling that candidate a liar. When the truth came out, the response was that Cruz hadn't disavowed the attack forcefully enough. What part of "not one of ours" is so difficult?
Let's take that into the geopolitical arena, shall we? A terrorist attack is made on the US. Assuming the attack came from country A, 'The Donald' orders a retaliatory strike on that Country.
Oops, spectral data indicate the physics package in the initial attack came from Country B.
The Donald lies about the origins of the attack, says they were really only a front for country A over at Country B, and orders a second, follow-up attack on Country A.
That is what those actions taken during the campaign would look like on a global scale, with the added plus of strategic weapons, and without the entire planet coming down on the US because of that incompetence and newly earned distrust.
I'm going to stop here, partly because i doubt you have read this far, partly because I have other things to do with my day. But there are more reasons to not find Trump acceptable for the job, from his latest embrace of an entitlement program possibly larger in scope (and expense) than the Great Society, to walking back his immigration stance, to faltering on the Wall before the first brick is laid, to an even bigger Obamacare, to a general return to the liberal positions of his younger days, to talk of funding all the good things done by an outfit which custom aborts babies to sell the parts for profit.
Frankly, I don't see much conservative about the man, nor desirable traits for someone I would want near the nuclear 'football' and representing this country as ostensible the leader of the free world.
I am sure others would be happy to weigh in with their reasons, too.
Nailed it as usual Joe.
-
Common theme in reading the Hate Always Squad around the internet. Very long on infantile insults and childish bile lace tirades and completely vacant of any sort of rational, reasoned argument against Trump.
Use to be Conservatives thought, Leftists felt. Sad to see that so many supposed "Conservatives" are actually no different the than Leftists they claim to scorn.
So lines such as this;
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?'
is a reasoned, Constitutional conservative position in your line of thinking, huh?
BTW, that line, is the language of the left. Adopting the left's agenda, but promising to implement it "better and cheaper" is not going to fix what ails us. What's going to have to happen, and at some point it must, is deep, meaningful across the board cuts in government and spending. Everywhere. No exceptions
-
So lines such as this;
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?'
is a reasoned, Constitutional conservative position in your line of thinking, huh?
BTW, that line, is the language of the left
As far as I'm aware "Helping Working families" is nowhere in the constitution.
The "Working families" clowns were in Lansing with the unions agitating against Michigan's RTW law a couple years ago.
-
So lines such as this;
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?'
is a reasoned, Constitutional conservative position in your line of thinking, huh?
BTW, that line, is the language of the left. Adopting the left's agenda, but promising to implement it "better and cheaper" is not going to fix what ails us. What's going to have to happen, and at some point it must, is deep, meaningful across the board cuts in government and spending. Everywhere. No exceptions
You are correct.
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit affirmative action?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit abortion?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the creation of the EPA?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit welfare programs?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit (so-called) reasonable gun contol?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the school lunch program?"
etc.
I say the 10th amendment prohibits all these things
It is the truly the language of the left.
-
You are correct.
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit assisting working families through changes in federal tax laws?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit affirmative action?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit abortion?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the creation of the EPA?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit welfare programs?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit (so-called) reasonable gun contol?'
"Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the school lunch program?"
etc.
I say the 10th amendment prohibits all these things
It is the truly the language of the left.
@GrouchoTex
What I find disheartening and discouraging is the fact that many who are supporting this new entitlement would be in opposition of it if proposed by anyone else :shrug:
-
@GrouchoTex
What I find disheartening and discouraging is the fact that many who are supporting this new entitlement would be in opposition of it if proposed by anyone else :shrug:
But that is how the Marxist agenda advances. Policies which would be vehemently opposed by the Right if proposed by the Left, are embraced by the Right if proposed from the Right. Change management, and hit it from the other side, with policies proposed by the Left for the left, but ever advancing toward totalitarian government. Every policy change, every power granted to government should be first examined as if our worst enemies or abject criminals would be in office and able to use it against us. Then vote accordingly.
-
When I was on FR, I used to ask what evidence do they have that a growing federal government under Trump would work were other's have failed. Although many did acknowledge that Trump would indeed grow the size of the federal government, their belief was it would work under him because of his experience in running big companies :thud:
We are seeing the same belief here a bit
-
When I was on FR, I used to ask what evidence do they have that a growing federal government under Trump would work were other's have failed. Although many did acknowledge that Trump would indeed grow the size of the federal government, their belief was it would work under him because of his experience in running big companies :thud:
They used to come up with all kinds of reasons to defend George W. Bush and his Republican Congresses metastasising
the government, too. Usually it boiled down to, yeah, they're big government hypocrites but they're our big government
hypocrites because, after all, Democratic big government is so much worse . . . So much for working to roll back decades
of large government largesse, eh?
-
When I was on FR, I used to ask what evidence do they have that a growing federal government under Trump would work were other's have failed. Although many did acknowledge that Trump would indeed grow the size of the federal government, their belief was it would work under him because of his experience in running big companies :thud:
We are seeing the same belief here a bit
I don't understand this might makes right belief as long as we are in power mentality. Folks would to well to Read T. H. White's Once and Future King.
Proverbs 3:31 "Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways."
-
I don't understand this might makes right belief as long as we are in power mentality. Folks would to well to Read T. H. White's Once and Future King.
Proverbs 3:31 "Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways."
People forget that every power, every ability, given to government which favors them today can be used or abused by those who will use it against them in the future. Precedents can be dangerous things to establish.
-
They used to come up with all kinds of reasons to defend George W. Bush and his Republican Congresses metastasising
the government, too. Usually it boiled down to, yeah, they're big government hypocrites but they're our big government
hypocrites because, after all, Democratic big government is so much worse . . . So much for working to roll back decades
of large government largesse, eh?
The problem with adding more entitlements to the budget beyond the fiscal issue is you start creating a cycle of dependency. I know there's a desire to "help working families," but when cuts have to come, and they will, the fight on what to cut and how much is intensified and never solved because of the number of people dependent on them.
A perfect example is SS and Medicare.