The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: ABX on October 14, 2016, 11:12:39 pm
-
The lovely and brilliant Dana Perino is absolutely fed up with Republicans who are defending Trump on the numerous sexual harassment accusations, and she’s DONE.
Watch her explode as politely and nicely as possible:
http://therightscoop.com/twenty-years-defending-guys-im-done-dana-perino/
-
Many of us are
-
Video isn't working. Maybe the site got mobbed.
Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI9lYDe8O20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI9lYDe8O20)
-
Dana just got her own show on Fox and oh yeah...she has a new book.
-
Dana just got her own show on Fox and oh yeah...she has a new book.
Doesn't everyone? Tis the season...
-
POLITICOVerified account
@politico
.@realDonaldTrump: "When [@HillaryClinton] walked in front of me, believe me, I wasn't impressed"
-
It is just unbelievable the lengths some will go to to defend Trump. The man is all about do as he says, not as he does...that he is the greatest thing ever starting NOW (like a person who restarts a diet every day)....that what he has said is not what he has said....that all criticism about him are lies even when it is right there on tape (starting with Cruz criticisms)....on and on. What a disaster. It is bad enough to see the nominee implode. But here nearly everyone wants to implode with him.
When Cruz stated that the candidate is the leader of his campaign, he sets the tone of that campaign, and the expected behaviour of his supporters by his own words and actions, (after saying street protesters were responsible for their own actions), the Trump campaign turned on Cruz with the lie that Cruz had blamed rioters in the street on Trump.
Funny thing was, Cruz spoke in generalities, and never said Trump's name.
Just one of many revealing incidents for those who were paying attention to Trump and his camp followers.
-
@Smokin Joe
So you think Cruz wasn't talking about Trump when he appeared minutes after Trump cancelled his rally in Chicago and said this? :nono:
“I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment, when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence–to punch people in the face. The predictable consequence of that is that it escalates and today is unlikely to be the last such instance”
-
@Smokin Joe
So you think Cruz wasn't talking about Trump when he appeared minutes after Trump cancelled his rally in Chicago and said this? :nono:
“I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment, when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence–to punch people in the face. The predictable consequence of that is that it escalates and today is unlikely to be the last such instance”
He was referring to the candidate that said to "punch them in the face" and "I'll pay your legal bills". That's the guy.
-
It is just unbelievable the lengths some will go to to defend Trump. The man is all about do as he says, not as he does...that he is the greatest thing ever starting NOW (like a person who restarts a diet every day)....that what he has said is not what he has said....that all criticism about him are lies even when it is right there on tape (starting with Cruz criticisms)....on and on. What a disaster. It is bad enough to see the nominee implode. But here nearly everyone wants to implode with him.
There are so many aspects of this whole debacle that cause me to view Trump and all his followers in the light of a Nicolae Carpathia. You didn't see what you saw. You didn't hear what you heard. All the truth you need is what The Trump has spoken. And if he did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, it didn't happen.
-
There are so many aspects of this whole debacle that cause me to view Trump and all his followers in the light of a Nicolae Carpathia. You didn't see what you saw. You didn't hear what you heard. All the truth you need is what The Trump has spoken. And if he did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, it didn't happen.
Hillary's fanbois have similar delusions about their candidate as well.
-
@Smokin Joe
So you think Cruz wasn't talking about Trump when he appeared minutes after Trump cancelled his rally in Chicago and said this? :nono:
“I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment, when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence–to punch people in the face. The predictable consequence of that is that it escalates and today is unlikely to be the last such instance”
Who do you think he was referring to? Of course he was referring to the candidate with the coarse rhetoric and exhortations to violence.
But that wasn't the issue now was it? The issue was whether or not Cruz blamed Trump for the riots in the streets.
Of those, Cruz said, "The responsibility for that lies with protestors who took violence into their own hands."
He said that before he took Trump to task for his exhortations to violence during his rallys.
"But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate who is responsible for the culture of the campaign,” the Texas senator said. “And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.”
“I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment,” Cruz added. “When the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence, to punch people in the face. The predicable consequence of that is that it escalates. And today is unlikely to be the last such instance. … That is not how our politics should occur.”
But y'alll keep throwing out strawman effigies of Cruz and attacking them. (pssst. I think you should devote your energies to fighting Hillary. She's your real enemy.)
-
Hillary's fanbois have similar delusions about their candidate as well.
Am I to find solace that we've sunk as low as Democrats?
-
Am I to find solace that we've sunk as low as Democrats?
Yes! At least we know it can't go much lower! :nometalk:
-
Video isn't working. Maybe the site got mobbed.
Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI9lYDe8O20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI9lYDe8O20)
My take away from that is that A) Dana is 100% correct and B) Kim is so bangin. Hot chicks are so much fun. I know. I'm married to one and I didn't have to give her the ol' Trump bowling ball treatment to get her.
BTW, isn't the near tears depression of Eric Bolling hysterical? He can choke on his own vomit for pimping Donny like a turned out whore the last year.
-
Am I to find solace that we've sunk as low as Democrats?
No. But here we are. And I don't see it getting any better.
-
My take away from that is that A) Dana is 100% correct and B) Kim is so bangin. Hot chicks are so much fun. I know. I'm married to one and I didn't have to give her the ol' Trump bowling ball treatment to get her.
BTW, isn't the near tears depression of Eric Bolling hysterical? He can choke on his own vomit for pimping Donny like a turned out whore the last year.
Dana is 100% correct. Nice to see another one departing the Plantation, and glad she's getting her own show.
-
Dana is 100% correct. Nice to see another one departing the Plantation, and glad she's getting her own show.
Can someone explain to me why Megyn Kelly is still at that sewer?
-
Can someone explain to me why Megyn Kelly is still at that sewer?
I can't unless it is a seniority thing. She has the raw ability, the personality, and the looks to go farther if she wants to (you would think), so there must be either some intangible we don't recognize or more compensation than we are aware of.
-
FNC, like the Republican party, has lost massive amounts of credibility. They were both hit with the same IED: Donald Trump. Like the Republican party, they have a lot of rebuilding to do. I'm not sure if they can pull it off, but there's some good raw talent there. If Megyn and/or Bret Baier leave, I'm gone.
BTW, I'm not optimistic that the Republican party will be able to recover. I think it's probably done for.
-
BTW, I'm not optimistic that the Republican party will be able to recover. I think it's probably done for.
(http://northmyrtlebeachbingo.com/myrtle_beach_bingo/wp-content/uploads/bingo-logo.png)
-
The GOP's problems started way before Trump. Trump was just the final straw. But I think it was doomed either way. The field of candidates was weak from top to bottom. I mean if Trump was able to win the nomination, what did that say about the rest of the field? I'm sure the candidates were better people than Trump, but they just weren't very good campaigners.
-
The GOP's problems started way before Trump. Trump was just the final straw. But I think it was doomed either way. The field of candidates was weak from top to bottom. I mean if Trump was able to win the nomination, what did that say about the rest of the field? I'm sure the candidates were better people than Trump, but they just weren't very good campaigners.
Campaigning against Trump involved getting face time with the media in spite of Trump's antics, and overcoming the Trumpian smear machine. The closer one got to Trump's numbers, the tougher the fight, especially on the latter front. Remember, Trump has a lifetime spent doing self-promotion at the expense of competitors.
-
Campaigning against Trump involved getting face time with the media in spite of Trump's antics, and overcoming the Trumpian smear machine. The closer one got to Trump's numbers, the tougher the fight, especially on the latter front.
The problem is all of the other candidates were relative newbies without the kind of "gravitas" to overcome it. Cruz, Rubio, Fiorino, et. al were all relatively unknown. Kasich probably was the one with the most experience, but he was way too liberal for the base. The only big name was Jeb, and well, nobody wants the Bushes anymore, so he was a non-starter.
-
The GOP's problems started way before Trump. Trump was just the final straw. But I think it was doomed either way. The field of candidates was weak from top to bottom. I mean if Trump was able to win the nomination, what did that say about the rest of the field? I'm sure the candidates were better people than Trump, but they just weren't very good campaigners.
None of them knew how to handle Trump. It derailed them. They couldn't talk issues because Trump was setting the agenda with his latest verbal spew.
-
None of them knew how to handle Trump. It derailed them. They couldn't talk issues because Trump was setting the agenda with his latest verbal spew.
If they couldn't handle Trump, how could they have handled Hillary's machine with the willing media?
-
The GOP's problems started way before Trump. Trump was just the final straw. But I think it was doomed either way. The field of candidates was weak from top to bottom. I mean if Trump was able to win the nomination, what did that say about the rest of the field? I'm sure the candidates were better people than Trump, but they just weren't very good campaigners.
I think it says more about how the disappointed Republican electorate mismanaged their anger. They let the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction, and instead of soberly assessing the field, they went for the wild man-child.
Peter Jennings didn't have any idea what a temper tantrum really looks like. If he were alive today, he'd realize that 2016 is the year Republicans had a true temper tantrum, a.k.a., Trumpertantrum.
-
I think it says more about how the disappointed Republican electorate mismanaged their anger. They let the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction, and instead of soberly assessing the field, they went for the wild man-child.
Peter Jennings didn't have any idea what a temper tantrum really looks like. If he were alive today, he'd realize that 2016 is the year Republicans had a true temper tantrum, a.k.a., Trumpertantrum.
Because they got nowhere with the Milquetoasts. I don't blame them for wanting to try something different for once, it didn't work out this time. Lessons learned.
-
The problem is all of the other candidates were relative newbies without the kind of "gravitas" to overcome it. Cruz, Rubio, Fiorino, et. al were all relatively unknown. Kasich probably was the one with the most experience, but he was way too liberal for the base. The only big name was Jeb, and well, nobody wants the Bushes anymore, so he was a non-starter.
I had been paying attention to Cruz in the Senate. He'd given a couple of those 'ambush interviews' and came across quite well. I knew others who mentioned him first, so he was known among those paying attention.
Cruz was kept on the defensive from Iowa, and the smear machine never let up. I honestly don't think he was prepared for that so much as debate on the issues. Trump made Cruz' campaign about defending Cruz as much as promoting ideas, and Trump captured an inordinate amount of air time by staying controversial.
While I question such a strategy with a better focused electorate, the sheer and unbridled anger of GOP voters at the MSM, at Congressmen who reneged on the promises they made to get elected and often did not even seem to try to hinder Obama was successfully harnessed by a cult of personality which grew rapidly around Trump. I have little doubt that there were paid operatives on prominent internet forums, twitter, and facebook who worked the crowd to incite that anger and direct it toward anyone but Trump in order to build that cult. That isn't saying all Trump supporters were/are that far in, just enough that any expression of opinion contrary to those worshipful of Trump was met with hostility, harassment, or silenced.
Despite that, the Cruz ground game was solid, and brought him a lot of delegates where Trump didn't even make an effort. Of course, Trump countered that by saying Cruz "stole" those delegates, ever playing the meme that Cruz was using 'dirty tricks', even as Trump slandered him, his wife, and his father with the help of his pal at the National Enquirer and a well trolled internet always hungry for rumor, invective, and scandal. That Cruz did so well against an onslaught unprecedented in the last century of American Politics shows he did quite well, considering he is not the master of self-promotion Trump has made his living being.
Trump successfully harnessed the electorate's anger at poor border security, poor employment prospects, the entire EPA onslaught against American industry (even though Trump said he'd use the EPA to the fullest extent of the law when campaigning in Iowa), unbridled immigration-legal and illegal, especially appealing to xenophobic elements with 'the wall', something Cruz has suggested in 2011, and Trump got the voters to think it was Trump's idea. In fact, many of the ideas Trump put forth (and often walked back) were much the same as the policy points Cruz had had.
The salient difference, unfortunately, is one of character. While I think, given the opportunity, Cruz would have become even better at campaigning, and gone on to defeat Hillary, Trump's history of egregious misbehaviour has become a burden even too great for his cult to bear. Unfortunately, the MSM and the Clintons are using that against Trump, much as the fabricated and fictional misdeeds of Cruz were used against Cruz.
That gambit is simple. Keep the media talking about the sins of the other guy.
Drag out the very real dirt and push that against them.
If Trump had gained that upper hand against the Clintons and used it as effectively as he used it against his Republican opponents, he'd still be in the running. But the Clinton camp has had months to study the strategy, how it worked, why it worked, and remodel it to appeal to not only their base, but the swing votes in the middle, women, and even the religious, and turn it against Trump. That whole time, Trump has either been on the defensive or has been utilizing the same frenzied arguments against the GOP, preoccupied with unconditional loyalty instead of stripping Hillary of the same.
The corner Trump is in leaves him unable to pander to any in the groups he needs to win without alienating his core base of loyal followers. Disillusion those and the election goes to Hillary in a landslide, where otherwise it may be a little closer. Clinton will likely win the majority women's vote, Democrats, of course, blacks, hispanics, gays, and will even attract some blue dog democrats who don't think trump is a good deal. I think third party votes, especially Libertarian Party will be higher than in the past, and I hope the Constitution Party makes progress.
I think the schism in the GOP will not be healed and although I think the party will continue for a couple more cycles at least, if the management stays the same it is on its way to the Elephant's graveyard. That isn't wishful thinking, I had hoped the party could be steered back toward Constitutional Republicaninsm, but the entrenched power elite in the party want no parts of that, as evidenced by the past series of elections, their attitude toward the TEA party faction of the GOP, and toward Conservatives since Goldwater. Ronald Reagan, God Bless him, was a fluke, and the closest we got to a Conservative in the Oval office in a long time. It won't happen again until another Party is ready to move in as the prime contender against the Democrats.
-
Trying to be somewhat of an optimist (which is against my nature), I don't think the GOP is any worse off than it was after 1964 and the Goldwater debacle.
I think Hillary's presidency will be an epic failure, and all of this will quickly be forgotten. At least I hope so.
-
Trying to be somewhat of an optimist (which is against my nature), I don't think the GOP is any worse off than it was after 1964 and the Goldwater debacle.
I think Hillary's presidency will be an epic failure, and all of this will quickly be forgotten. At least I hope so.
I agree about a Hillary Presidency, but I don't think it will be quickly forgotten.
-
Note, it is October 14th and were already performing the election autopsy...
I think the real question is what will become of the GOP. Is this its Whig's moment? Will it assume it didn't go far enough left, as it always seems to do? Or will it finally listen to what was its conservative base? Will Trump be gone or did he get a taste of something he can't let go of? And then there's the alt-right...
At this point I don't expect much. At a minimum I have to hunker down and try to survive the coming Hillary storm and I didn't survive the Obama storm very well... I'm running pretty low on optimism these days.
-
I agree about a Hillary Presidency, but I don't think it will be quickly forgotten.
Or forgiven.
-
I hate to say it, but I just don't know if there are enough conservatives around anymore. I think it's the sad truth we're going to have to start facing.
-
Yes! At least we know it can't go much lower! :nometalk:
That could be the kiss of death. It is Oct 15th. I don't want to find out what the lower it can go...
-
The GOP's problems started way before Trump. Trump was just the final straw. But I think it was doomed either way. The field of candidates was weak from top to bottom. I mean if Trump was able to win the nomination, what did that say about the rest of the field? I'm sure the candidates were better people than Trump, but they just weren't very good campaigners.
There were a lot of good candidates, any of the others would have beaten Hillary like a toy drum. Trump was her pawn and she used him well, knowing the vote would be split among the others.
-
None of them knew how to handle Trump. It derailed them. They couldn't talk issues because Trump was setting the agenda with his latest verbal spew.
I don't entirely agree, although what you said is absolutely true for some of them (Rubio, bush, etc). For the rest, it wasn't that they couldn't handle trump, it's that they couldn't get a word in edge-wise with the media vacuum that the press created FOR trump. Make no mistake, we have trump because he is exactly who the media wanted us to have.
Don't believe me: go see how many 40 minute speeches of ted Cruz or Carly fiorina or Ben Carson were shown on the news networks in their entirety. Then look and see how many of trumps were at that same time. The MSM wanted Trump v Clinton because that was the only race they stood a chance of winning.
-
Trying to be somewhat of an optimist (which is against my nature), I don't think the GOP is any worse off than it was after 1964 and the Goldwater debacle.
I think Hillary's presidency will be an epic failure, and all of this will quickly be forgotten. At least I hope so.
'64? I think you could make a good case for tracking many of our current ills can be traced to that turning point in history. Pre-64, America was one thing, after-64 something quite different.
-
I wasn't aware that some healthy skepticism was creeping back into Fox. Good. I may be able to watch it on occasion now.
-
I hate to say it, but I just don't know if there are enough conservatives around anymore. I think it's the sad truth we're going to have to start facing.
There are, but the brand has been thoroughly trashed.
People from all over the political spectrum have been calling themselves "conservative".
It has regional differences as well. (What those of us in the hinterlands understood when reference was made to 'New York Values'.).
As they often do, liberals have made the term meaningless by calling the candidate who is running against the uberliberal "conservative" when they only are in a relative sense.
We need a new name for what we stand for.
There is bloody little in the political landscape worth conserving as it stands and is practiced.
Getting back to the Constitution is the only hope of restoring the Republic. Getting the Federal Government hammered back into its limited powers, restoring States' Rights and the Rights of the individual, and returning the Federal Government to fulfilling its prescribed duties and only those is the ticket to having a successful nation again.
America made incredible progress when we were closer to that form of government, and ever stagnates under the increasing burden of an increasingly centralized and totalitarian government.
We do great injustice to those who founded this country, who had often studied the very things which destroy nations and even empires, and did their utmost to avoid them by acknowledging the Rights of the Individual, creating a balance of power in the hands of individuals and the government they created to constrain that Government and yet permit it to function, not as some tightly controlled entity, but with enough leeway to survive and adapt to changing times, without sacrificing individual Rights to do so.
It has been a series of false dichotomies which have led us down this fallacious path.
Either you pay to feed all the hungry or you want them to starve.
Either you let the people with Social work degrees run your life or you hate children.
Either you do this or you're not that, or you are all for the evil du jour.
Either you give up your guns or you are for blood in the streets (another popular fallacy).
We still see that mentality daily, and somehow it is still effective, that either you are for more government or you hate puppies and kittens and laughing children...
Enough.
Just enough.
Time to quit.
We became a great nation because of our ability to say "None of the above, I have a better solution." We innovated, we invented, we conceived, designed, and built wonders only dreamed of. We prevailed in warfare, in technical prowess, in exploration, and in economic strength, not because the Government ran things, but because of the tremendous freedom to think, conceive, innovate, and construct those wonders. Now, even the activities at play that children of my youth freely participated in are constrained or forbidden, those playtime fantasies being the stuff that dreams are made of, those dreams the inspiration for true advancement.
Worse yet, so many of our countrymen (and women--and the Heinz 57 other gender identities out there) have become comfortable with their chains, a mantle of over reaching regulation and at best fight hair splitting battles over this word or that phrase, without even considering the question of the legitimacy of such authority over the individual, his family, his property, or his actions.
Maybe there aren't enough people left who more value that freedom than fear it.
But having listened to the grumblings of yet another generation, I doubt that.
I'd be willing to try, nonetheless.
@Norm Lenhart @dfwgator @Victoria33 @Freya @txradioguy @AbaraXas @CatherineofAragon @EC
-
I have never spoken a word in support of Trump - but yet, I have tried to remain open to the possibility. Oh, I have tried.
Not anymore.
He has irretrievably lost me.
His steadfast supporters are now extensions of Trump himself. To them, I will now be a bad guy. His soon-to-be failed election will be a watershed episode for the ages. Much, probably all, to the worse.
-
Can someone explain to me why Megyn Kelly is still at that sewer?
She has a huge marble collection. With her prit-kongs on display.
-
I have never spoken a word in support of Trump - but yet, I have tried to remain open to the possibility. Oh, I have tried.
Not anymore.
He has irretrievably lost me.
His steadfast supporters are now parodies of Trump himself. To them, I will now be a bad guy. His soon-to-be failed election will be a watershed episode for the ages. Much, probably all, to the worse.
I have spoken the truth about Trump from day one and have lost friends here and elsewhere over it. I hate that my former friends cannot stand the light of truth but that is never going to stop me from speaking it.
You are a stand up guy Lando. Glad to have you as a friend.
-
You are a stand up guy Lando. Glad to have you as a friend.
You and I have disagreed from time to time Bigun, but it has always been with mutual respect. As it should be. I am honored to call you friend.
-
Defend this, Dana.
(http://www.fury.news/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Untitled-31.jpg)
Yes, that's Anderson Cooper and Megyn Kelly. Two media whores who spend their time on air trying to derail Trump. If they succeed, say Hello Madam President.
But, listen to me. No one here cares. Just so long as they get to say "I told you so."
#NeverTrump: A clear and present danger to the republic.
-
I don't entirely agree, although what you said is absolutely true for some of them (Rubio, bush, etc). For the rest, it wasn't that they couldn't handle trump, it's that they couldn't get a word in edge-wise with the media vacuum that the press created FOR trump. Make no mistake, we have trump because he is exactly who the media wanted us to have.
Don't believe me: go see how many 40 minute speeches of ted Cruz or Carly fiorina or Ben Carson were shown on the news networks in their entirety. Then look and see how many of trumps were at that same time. The MSM wanted Trump v Clinton because that was the only race they stood a chance of winning.
Exactly! goopo
-
You and I have disagreed from time to time Bigun, but it has always been with mutual respect. As it should be. I am honored to call you friend.
Disagreements between human beings are as natural as sunlight and rain. They don't necessarily need to be destructive. Great to see you here this morning.
-
Glad to have you as a friend.
One more thing. One day, I'll be down your way and I'd be proud to buy you and the missus a big chunk of Texas beef.
-
Defend this, Dana.
> image deleted<
Yes, that's Anderson Cooper and Megyn Kelly. Two media whores who spend their time on air trying to derail Trump. If they succeed, say Hello Madam President.
But, listen to me. No one here cares. Just so long as they get to say "I told you so."
#NeverTrump: A clear and present danger to the republic.
Wow, you are getting desperate.
We've seen Mrs. Trump's cover shot, too.
But don't attack the message, attack the messenger, now that Trump is bleeding votes out of his ....whatever.
It is the Trumpian way.
-
Defend this, Dana.
Yes, that's Anderson Cooper and Megyn Kelly. Two media whores who spend their time on air trying to derail Trump. If they succeed, say Hello Madam President.
But, listen to me. No one here cares. Just so long as they get to say "I told you so."
#NeverTrump: A clear and present danger to the republic.
Megan has dead cold shark eyes. I can't stand to look at her.
-
Maybe there aren't enough people left who more value that freedom than fear it.
But having listened to the grumblings of yet another generation, I doubt that.
I'd be willing to try, nonetheless.
@Norm Lenhart @dfwgator @Victoria33 @Freya @txradioguy @AbaraXas @CatherineofAragon @EC
Not much for me to disagree with there Joe. Also, not much for me to feel good about either. Dang.
-
One more thing. One day, I'll be down your way and I'd be proud to buy you and the missus a big chunk of Texas beef.
Come on down! I know just the place! And YOU will love it!
-
Megan has dead cold shark eyes. I can't stand to look at her.
Tell you what Megyn, men will stop objectifying women as soon as women stop objectifying themselves, or until the biologic procreative imperative has been extinguished from life on earth.
-
Tell you what Megyn, men will stop objectifying women as soon as women stop objectifying themselves, or until the biologic procreative imperative has been extinguished from life on earth.
I'm sure women would be happy if some men would stop thinking they have license to "grab 'em by the bleep."
-
If hillary wins we see The Great Divide shepherded by obama grow into where "domestic terrorism" becomes the norm. If Trump wins I have to move to Mexico. For me either is a no win scenario.
-
Trying to be somewhat of an optimist (which is against my nature), I don't think the GOP is any worse off than it was after 1964 and the Goldwater debacle.
I think Hillary's presidency will be an epic failure, and all of this will quickly be forgotten. At least I hope so.
Hillary will put American conservatism in the ash heap of history. She will grant amnesty to millions of illegals (Mraxists) and never again will an R win a national election. She will pack the Supreme Court with activist Marxist judges that will totally rewrite our constitution. We will lose freedom of speech to hate laws. We will lose freedom of religion to discrimination laws. We will lose the 2cd to gun control laws. We will lose the ability to earn a living to trade laws. And that's only if she does not first get us into a nuclear war with Russia over Syria. When we will lose our lives. Voting anything but Trump is insanity.
-
Tell you what Megyn, men will stop objectifying women as soon as women stop objectifying themselves, or until the biologic procreative imperative has been extinguished from life on earth.
Yeah, but that's not the issue here.
-
I post here what? Maybe 2-4 times a week. Yet, every time I do, right behind me, here comes sinkspur, who likes to call Trump supporters Trumpoids (well, that's better than bleep I suppose, which management told him not to use).
So, here's sinkspur putting up flak. I guess I must be over the target.
-
Hillary will put American conservatism in the ash heap of history. She will grant amnesty to millions of illegals (Mraxists) and never again will an R win a national election. She will pack the Supreme Court with activist Marxist judges that will totally rewrite our constitution. We will lose freedom of speech to hate laws. We will lose freedom of religion to discrimination laws. We will lose the 2cd to gun control laws. We will lose the ability to earn a living to trade laws. And that's only if she does not first get us into a nuclear war with Russia over Syria. When we will lose our lives. Voting anything but Trump is insanity.
She won't do that without the acquiescence of the GOP Congress, which Trump is fighting against.
She's a threat to the ship, assuredly, but before we worry about that boarding party, we have a fire in the forward magazine we'd better deal with, and Trump is it.
-
'64? I think you could make a good case for tracking many of our current ills can be traced to that turning point in history. Pre-64, America was one thing, after-64 something quite different.
You can thank LBJ immigration policies for that. "Demographics is history" lose on immigration (we did) and you are a foot note in history.
-
You can thank LBJ immigration policies for that. "Demographics is history" lose on immigration (we did) and you are a foot note in history.
The 'Great Society' was more destructive.
-
Hillary's fanbois have similar delusions about their candidate as well.
I'm not surprised Perino's had enough after what happened to Yeb.
He's a goofy profane philanderer. She will lead this country to ruin.
So I will do nothing that enhances this hateful maoist's chances.
What hash this whole thing has become.
-
She won't do that without the acquiescence of the GOP Congress, which Trump is fighting against.
She's a threat to the ship, assuredly, but before we worry about that boarding party, we have a fire in the forward magazine we'd better deal with, and Trump is it.
The GOP congress wanted to do it (amnesty) last year, only Cantors' defeat by an unknown running against amnesty scared them into not passing amnesty. Hillary if elected will get her amnesty and then you can kiss American conservatism, along with the bill of rights, good-bye forever. Conservationism as a political force in the USA will not survive Hillary. She will make the USA politically look like California. Even Texas will go blue.
-
The 'Great Society' was more destructive.
Was or still is?
-
I'm not surprised Perino's had enough after what happened to Yeb.
He's a goofy profane philanderer. She will lead this country to ruin.
So I will do nothing that enhances this hateful maoist's chances.
What hash this whole thing has become.
I spent the last year and a half looking up, researching and studying objective information about Donald Trump – that is, pre-election information – about Donald Trump's history and about his true character – not the caricature portrayed by media, Democrat and NeverTrump haters. All of that information is post primary and therefore subject to being partisan, politically motivated lies.
You, on the other hand, spent the same time reading TBR's NeverTrump biased disinformation (it makes a difference, you know).
Stop being led around by the nose. Do your own independent research. Trump may end up being one of America's great presidents because of his work ethic and love of country.
-
You can thank LBJ immigration policies for that. "Demographics is history" lose on immigration (we did) and you are a foot note in history.
Yep. We will not be able to ride out the next four years and then work to return to where we should be. You can't get there from there.
-
The GOP congress wanted to do it (amnesty) last year, only Cantors' defeat by an unknown running against amnesty scared them into not passing amnesty. Hillary if elected will get her amnesty and then you can kiss American conservatism, along with the bill of rights, good-bye forever. Conservationism as a political force in the USA will not survive Hillary. She will make the USA politically look like California. Even Texas will go blue.
If conservatism cannot take a stand in the Congress with a GOP majority, I would suggest that it is already, in essence, doomed to the sidelines until it cleans house (Conservatism, the GOP is a write-off). Conservatism has become fraught with charlatans who do not espouse the beliefs they express, nor act to protect those values they do claim. As such, in the halls of power there is scant representation, and even less support.
Considering Trump can't hold his ground on an idea from the Primaries to the General, what credibility is left for the transition from candidate to POTUS? The only thing Trump has been consistent about is attacking Republicans, whether Conservatives or not.
If this fight is to be won, it will have to be won by stopping the juggernaut at every turn, subjecting it to the death of a thousand cuts. No one person will stop it, at least not the one who has a long history of supporting Liberal causes and standard bearers.
If you are looking to Trump to be the knight in shining armor, the messiah bringing salvation for all things Conservative, you have chosen poorly.
-
Was or still is?
Was then, still is, and likely will have a lingering effect long beyond LBJ's 'hundred years'.
-
I spent the last year and a half looking up, researching and studying objective information about Donald Trump – that is, pre-election information – about Donald Trump's history and about his true character – not the caricature portrayed by media, Democrat and NeverTrump haters. All of that information is post primary and therefore subject to being partisan, politically motivated lies.
You, on the other hand, spent the same time reading TBR's NeverTrump biased disinformation (it makes a difference, you know).
Stop being led around by the nose. Do your own independent research. Trump may end up being one of America's great presidents because of his work ethic and love of country.
Quick question.
I see you used the term "NeverTrump haters". Is that people who hate NeverTrumps?
I have to laugh at the silliness of "That happened 20, 30 years ago and isn't relevant" on the one hand, while others assert only older, pre-election dirt on Trump is good.
I had done my research on Trump, and while I was enjoying the Donny Show, his actions during the primaries demonstrated character traits which I found (and still find) repugnant, even beyond those which already had come to light long ago. To decry the results of digging into a past that was only tabloid fodder, because while rich, Trump wasn't a serious (i.e. politically powerful) public figure in the past is silly. While the others had a political life on display, the actions of Trump that weren't soap opera material for supermarket endcaps had not been so thoroughly examined. That only happened when Trump decided to run for public office, so much of his dealings had not come to light, nor been considered relevant. Now, that conduct is.
-
If they couldn't handle Trump, how could they have handled Hillary's machine with the willing media?
Wrongheaded:
Why they 'couldn't handle Trump' was because Trump was off the rails. The rest of the field was trying to keep spats to a minimum because in the end, party unity must be achievable. Meanwhile, Trump was up there barfing crap everywhere he turned. The party divisions are DEEP, Deep, deep - and caused precisely by Trump's combative style. It is FOOLISH to follow Trumps way. The reason he cannot win is because of the bad blood he caused in the primary.
To then say 'well, if they couldn't stand up to Trump, how could they stand up to Hillary's machine' is a ridiculous position. ANY ONE OF THEM (Bush and Grahamnesty withstanding) would have withstood the Democrats and retained more party solidarity better than Trump.
-
I spent the last year and a half looking up, researching and studying objective information about Donald Trump – that is, pre-election information – about Donald Trump's history and about his true character – not the caricature portrayed by media, Democrat and NeverTrump haters. All of that information is post primary and therefore subject to being partisan, politically motivated lies.
You, on the other hand, spent the same time reading TBR's NeverTrump biased disinformation (it makes a difference, you know).
Stop being led around by the nose. Do your own independent research. Trump may end up being one of America's great presidents because of his work ethic and love of country.
What I know about Trump came from his own mouth over the past thirty years. You can try but you can't put lipstick on that.
Hillary will administer the 'coup de grace' to the country. On this I will base my vote.
-
Can someone explain to me why Megyn Kelly is still at that sewer?
To get under Hannity's skin?
-
Because they got nowhere with the Milquetoasts. I don't blame them for wanting to try something different for once, it didn't work out this time. Lessons learned.
You say "lessons learned." That remains to be seen. I have rarely seen such a stiff-necked, entrenched and intolerant group as the Trumpsters. To wit, the purging of TOS of anyone who uttered a discouraging word about their political messiah. You do realize that this is unhealthy behavior, don't you? I'm not overly optimistic that these types will learn from their mistakes.
But let's get to your first point. Assuming that all the other candidates were milquetoasts, were there any of them that would have been better than Hildebeast (who is likely be our next president)? Or was it just more important to make that burn-the-house-down statement that we're angry as hell and not going to take it anymore by nominating a candidate who has been historically liberal and who behaves in a manner that we'd never allow our kids to behave? The truth is, so many Republicans approached this race from the very beginning with the mindset of #NeverBushRubioWalkerPaulChristieGrahamCruzEtc. So these people were part of the problem from the beginning. No candidate was going to be pure enough for them. They created a vacuum and Trump moved in to fill it. As he did, he poisoned the race with the vilest of rhetoric. When the people kept cheering him, there were lots of us who were incredulous. So much so that we almost thought we were being punked. Except that it was really happening.
We were treated so horribly by "fellow conservatives" and called all kinds of names. Why, there couldn't be any other explanation to them except that we were GOPe or whatever new words they made up for those of us with an unwavering commitment to Constitutional conservatism. I don't know if they always had that kind of meanness in them or were just aping the behavior of their new political messiah, but it was jarring to watch it all unfold.
Pardon me if I'm tired of the hackneyed "milquetoast" excuse, especially when there were more than a dozen other candidates to chose from. There was no legitimately good reason to support a non-conservative, rude, tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear bully like Trump to represent a party whose base claims to want conservatism upheld. And yet here we are with him as our nominee.
Sometimes missed opportunities are unfortunate. Sometimes they're devastating. I give you the presidential election of 2016 as an example of the latter.
-
Note, it is October 14th and were already performing the election autopsy...
I think the real question is what will become of the GOP. Is this its Whig's moment? Will it assume it didn't go far enough left, as it always seems to do? Or will it finally listen to what was its conservative base? Will Trump be gone or did he get a taste of something he can't let go of? And then there's the alt-right...
At this point I don't expect much. At a minimum I have to hunker down and try to survive the coming Hillary storm and I didn't survive the Obama storm very well... I'm running pretty low on optimism these days.
We had an autopsy of the 2012 election, with recommendations on what to do in order to win. In 2016, Trump and his supporters have done the opposite.
And we are facing another loss; likely to be a large loss, too.
Those points made from the 2012 autopsy are still what needs to be done in order to win again. However, the bad taste and stink left from this election will make those recommendations nearly impossible.
-
There are, but the brand has been thoroughly trashed.
People from all over the political spectrum have been calling themselves "conservative".
It has regional differences as well. (What those of us in the hinterlands understood when reference was made to 'New York Values'.).
As they often do, liberals have made the term meaningless by calling the candidate who is running against the uberliberal "conservative" when they only are in a relative sense.
We need a new name for what we stand for.
There is bloody little in the political landscape worth conserving as it stands and is practiced.
Getting back to the Constitution is the only hope of restoring the Republic. Getting the Federal Government hammered back into its limited powers, restoring States' Rights and the Rights of the individual, and returning the Federal Government to fulfilling its prescribed duties and only those is the ticket to having a successful nation again.
America made incredible progress when we were closer to that form of government, and ever stagnates under the increasing burden of an increasingly centralized and totalitarian government.
We do great injustice to those who founded this country, who had often studied the very things which destroy nations and even empires, and did their utmost to avoid them by acknowledging the Rights of the Individual, creating a balance of power in the hands of individuals and the government they created to constrain that Government and yet permit it to function, not as some tightly controlled entity, but with enough leeway to survive and adapt to changing times, without sacrificing individual Rights to do so.
It has been a series of false dichotomies which have led us down this fallacious path.
Either you pay to feed all the hungry or you want them to starve.
Either you let the people with Social work degrees run your life or you hate children.
Either you do this or you're not that, or you are all for the evil du jour.
Either you give up your guns or you are for blood in the streets (another popular fallacy).
We still see that mentality daily, and somehow it is still effective, that either you are for more government or you hate puppies and kittens and laughing children...
Enough.
Just enough.
Time to quit.
We became a great nation because of our ability to say "None of the above, I have a better solution." We innovated, we invented, we conceived, designed, and built wonders only dreamed of. We prevailed in warfare, in technical prowess, in exploration, and in economic strength, not because the Government ran things, but because of the tremendous freedom to think, conceive, innovate, and construct those wonders. Now, even the activities at play that children of my youth freely participated in are constrained or forbidden, those playtime fantasies being the stuff that dreams are made of, those dreams the inspiration for true advancement.
Worse yet, so many of our countrymen (and women--and the Heinz 57 other gender identities out there) have become comfortable with their chains, a mantle of over reaching regulation and at best fight hair splitting battles over this word or that phrase, without even considering the question of the legitimacy of such authority over the individual, his family, his property, or his actions.
Maybe there aren't enough people left who more value that freedom than fear it.
But having listened to the grumblings of yet another generation, I doubt that.
I'd be willing to try, nonetheless.
@Norm Lenhart @dfwgator @Victoria33 @Freya @txradioguy @AbaraXas @CatherineofAragon @EC
Quoting in full for truth (and to put it on the new page).
A while back on here, before the primaries even, we had a go at defining conservative. There's about as many definitions as there are members, it turns out. :shrug:
Yes, there are common threads in peoples definitions. The placing of each thread varies wildly.
-
Was or still is?
What we've got now is "The Great Society" on steroids.
-
Pardon me if I'm tired of the hackneyed "milquetoast" excuse, especially when there were more than a dozen other candidates to chose from. There was no legitimately good reason to support a non-conservative, rude, tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear bully like Trump to represent a party whose base claims to want conservatism upheld. And yet here we are with him as our nominee.
You hit on the biggest problem right there, the "dozen other candidates", what does that say, that means each one of those dozen thought the other guys sucked. How could there ever be have been any cohesion, with so much noise. That's on Priebus for allowing that the happen, and not seeing what a disaster having so many candidates would lead to. He should have been gone after 2012.
-
Hillary will put American conservatism in the ash heap of history.
Her partners, the Bushes, pretty much already took care of that.
-
You hit on the biggest problem right there, the "dozen other candidates", what does that say, that means each one of those dozen thought the other guys sucked. How could there ever be have been any cohesion, with so much noise. That's on Priebus for allowing that the happen, and not seeing what a disaster having so many candidates would lead to. He should have been gone after 2012.
Actually I think the GOP heads in DC tried to get a number of those to run to pave the way for Jeb. Cruz had the momentum. They hated Cruz and thought they could split the vote in certain key states to keep him from winning outright. What they didn't calculate on was Trump the wrecking ball. Instead of the plurality being Jeb it was Trump. The truth is Jeb was toast from the start, Trump or no Trump.
-
You hit on the biggest problem right there, the "dozen other candidates", what does that say, that means each one of those dozen thought the other guys sucked. How could there ever be have been any cohesion, with so much noise. That's on Priebus for allowing that the happen, and not seeing what a disaster having so many candidates would lead to. He should have been gone after 2012.
No, it means that the GOP is infected with a bunch of jackasses who didn't use their brains to evaluate the candidates, they allowed themselves to be tricked by a liberal grifter who played to their hatred, spite, and fear.
-
Actually I think the GOP heads in DC tried to get a number of those to run to pave the way for Jeb. Cruz had the momentum. They hated Cruz and thought they could split the vote in certain key states to keep him from winning outright. What they didn't calculate on was Trump the wrecking ball. Instead of the plurality being Jeb it was Trump. The truth is Jeb was toast from the start, Trump or no Trump.
I agree that had Jeb not run, things could have turned out different. Many people embraced Trump in the beginning because he was the "Anti-Jeb".
-
No, it means that the GOP is infected with a bunch of jackasses who didn't use their brains to evaluate the candidates, they allowed themselves to be tricked by a liberal grifter who played to their hatred, spite, and fear.
The question is where does that hatred spite and fear go? Because it won't go away just because Hillary wins - it will likely burn brighter.
BTW I share those qualities with them to a certain degree. I'm just capable of being rational at the same time.
-
You hit on the biggest problem right there, the "dozen other candidates", what does that say, that means each one of those dozen thought the other guys sucked. How could there ever be have been any cohesion, with so much noise. That's on Priebus for allowing that the happen, and not seeing what a disaster having so many candidates would lead to. He should have been gone after 2012.
Nice attempt at deflection, but it doesn't address the real problem. There's a YUUUGE ORANGE ELEPHANT in the room and there are many who refuse to acknowledge this. I'm all for changes in the RNC infrastructure, but in saying that, I'm not putting the blame on Priebus nor on the RNC rules. Those who fell for Trump's blather are responsible. We no longer have the right to make fun of these people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8) since we have learned we have our own version of these folks except that ours lean right.
I meant everything I said in my previous post.
-
I agree that had Jeb not run, things could have turned out different. Many people embraced Trump in the beginning because he was the "Anti-Jeb".
In the primaries, one votes for the candidate that best represents what you believe in. With more than two choices there is no need to vote against anyone until nearly the end of the primaries.
Trump captured the non-thinking crowd by playing on the knee-jerk fears of the GOP. Mainly immigration and Muslims. He immediately staked out the maximalist position and thus won the vote of those that never think of the 'how' or of the consequences.
How would his positions be implemented and what would we lose to make it happen?
-
The question is where does that hatred spite and fear go? Because it won't go away just because Hillary wins - it will likely burn brighter.
BTW I share those qualities with them to a certain degree. I'm just capable of being rational at the same time.
I fully expect the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia police to be engaged in firefights with Trumpists at voting sites on election day.
Trumpists have fully said they would arrive at voting sites to 'observe'. Their own statements describing how they would describe a law-breaking event. Democrats have stated they'd call for the police when that happens.
How do you think Trumpists will react when the police start arresting them en-masse?