The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 21, 2021, 06:24:31 pm
-
Jason Miller: Trump Will Be Launching a His Own Social Media Platform in the Next Few Months
Pam Key 21 Mar 2021
Former President Donald Trump’s senior advisor Jason Miller said Sunday on Fox News Channels “MediaBuzz†that Trump will be launching a social media platform in the next few months.
Host Howard Kurtz asked, “Donald Trump obviously has been booted off Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, which were a great megaphone for him. Does he plan to get back on social media perhaps with some new outfit?â€
Miller said, “I do think we’re going to see President Trump returning to social media and probably about two or three months here with his own platform. This is something that I think will be the hottest ticket in social media. It’s going to completely redefine the game. Everyone will be waiting and watching to see what exactly President Trump does. But it will be his own platform.â€
Kurtz asked, “Just to follow up, will this be a platform that the former president will create himself, working with another company? Obviously, he’ll be starting from scratch. He won’t start out with 88 million Twitter followers.â€
Miller said, “I can’t go much further than what I was able to just share. I can say it will be big once he starts. There have been a lot of high-powered meetings he has been having at Mar-a-Lago with teams of folks that have been coming in. I got to tell you it’s not just one company that’s approached the president. There have been numerous companies. I think the president knows what direction he wants to head here. This new platform is going to be big, and everyone wants him. He’s going to bring millions and millions, tens of millions of people to this new platform.â€
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/03/21/jason-miller-trump-will-be-launching-a-his-own-social-media-platform-in-the-next-few-months/
-
Trump’s 2020 campaign spokesman Jason Miller said that Trump will be returning to social media with a new platform and that it will “completely redefine the game,†and is expected to attract “tens of millions†of new users.
No more details have been released about this platform, how it will be hosted, or whether it is expected to have apps hosted at the Google and Apple app stores. Given the coordinated anti-Trump efforts of Big Tech in the wake of the Capitol riot it seems unlikely Trump’s alternative platform will be able to rely on left-wing big tech.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/03/21/breaking-trump-to-return-to-social-media-with-his-own-platform-soon-n1433966
-
Sign me up!
Obviously getting on smart phones is a hurdle, but lets see what happens.
If he can pull this off all Pubs should leave twitter immediately and force the leftist media to go to the new platform if they want news to report.
-
Sorry, I didn't realize you already posted this.
All I can say is SIGN ME UP!
-
All I can say is SIGN ME UP!
888high58888
-
I feel bad for those Parler guys. They worked their ass off to create a great platform. It was taking off like gang busters after the pre and post-election censorship from Twatter, the Amazon, Apple, and Google screwed them. Now they are back, without the momentum, and Trump, in typical selfish fashion, announces his own platform.
Sends a great message to Rumble and other folks looking to build a parallel, conservative-friendly, economy: don't bother.
-
And those who tell us to 'get over Trump' hurry to crap on every friggen thread bearing his name.
Its as tedious as hell.
-
And those who tell us to 'get over Trump' hurry to crap on every friggen thread bearing his name.
Its as tedious as hell.
You're being too kind @skeeter
Seriously.
-
I am SO looking forward to the MAGA Platform ... :smokin:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1dvPg82/Ex-CPc6-FXAAEINb1.jpg)
-
You're being too kind @skeeter
Seriously.
Im looking forward to what DJT comes up with here.
You really gotta be looking for things to bitch about to see a reason to complain here. The more voices, the better.
-
And those who tell us to 'get over Trump' hurry to crap on every friggen thread bearing his name.
Its as tedious as hell.
If we wanted to crap on a thread just for the sake of crapping on a thread, trust me, it would look a whole lot worse than the statement in question.
I don't think any of us would mind if Trump were to use his clout to incubate the upstarts who have been working to establish social media channels that aren't manipulated to push the left-wing agenda. If Trump had done what, for example, Dan Bongino has been doing and investing in these sites like Parler and Rumble, that kind of money would provide the robust infrastructure that would have allowed Parler to keep operating.
The fact that Trump constantly sees the need to set fire to all of his competition and control everything himself is rearing its ugly head again.
-
Im looking forward to what DJT comes up with here.
You really gotta be looking for things to bitch about to see a reason to complain here. The more voices, the better.
Social media requires a critical mass to be successful: everyone's on it because everyone's on it. In that sense, throwing more competitors to cannibalize your market is going to end up causing division and prevent any of them from becoming successful. Think of any huge primary: 2014 South Carolina, for example. We had countless primary challengers but none of them caught any traction and Lindsey Graham defeated all of them combined.
So what does Trump have that does not exist in this market, that people are going to want to adopt? What is he going to bring to the table that will ensure that this venture doesn't end up like Trump Steaks or the countless other failed attempts to cash in on his cult of personality?
-
Social media requires a critical mass to be successful: everyone's on it because everyone's on it. In that sense, throwing more competitors to cannibalize your market is going to end up causing division and prevent any of them from becoming successful. Think of any huge primary: 2014 South Carolina, for example. We had countless primary challengers but none of them caught any traction and Lindsey Graham defeated all of them combined.
with all due respect, how the hell would you know? Three months ago there was Twitter and Facebook. Suddenly competition is bad.
Because Trump. Lol
-
If we wanted to crap on a thread just for the sake of crapping on a thread, trust me, it would look a whole lot worse than the statement in question.
I don't think any of us would mind if Trump were to use his clout to incubate the upstarts who have been working to establish social media channels that aren't manipulated to push the left-wing agenda. If Trump had done what, for example, Dan Bongino has been doing and investing in these sites like Parler and Rumble, that kind of money would provide the robust infrastructure that would have allowed Parler to keep operating.
The fact that Trump constantly sees the need to set fire to all of his competition and control everything himself is rearing its ugly head again.
Exactly. It's always about him.
-
You're being too kind @skeeter
Seriously.
The difference between you and me is that I judge Trump's actions. Some I like, some I don't. You, on the other hand, worship the man. Anything other than 100% support of everything he says and does, you view as blasphemy.
-
Exactly. It's always about him.
You guys are hilariously predictable. I could write your posts for you.
-
I feel bad for those Parler guys. They worked their ass off to create a great platform. It was taking off like gang busters after the pre and post-election censorship from Twatter, the Amazon, Apple, and Google screwed them. Now they are back, without the momentum, and Trump, in typical selfish fashion, announces his own platform.
Sends a great message to Rumble and other folks looking to build a parallel, conservative-friendly, economy: don't bother.
What is the best way for Trump to insure he is never censored again?
Owning the social network platform is a good way to go.
-
Social media requires a critical mass to be successful: everyone's on it because everyone's on it. In that sense, throwing more competitors to cannibalize your market is going to end up causing division and prevent any of them from becoming successful. Think of any huge primary: 2014 South Carolina, for example. We had countless primary challengers but none of them caught any traction and Lindsey Graham defeated all of them combined.
So what does Trump have that does not exist in this market, that people are going to want to adopt? What is he going to bring to the table that will ensure that this venture doesn't end up like Trump Steaks or the countless other failed attempts to cash in on his cult of personality?
75 million supporters will create a lot of critical mass.
The big issue will be getting on smart phones Google and Apple have a monopoly that controls what apps can be downloaded.
Worse comes to worse Trump sues and helps to break up this tech monopoly.
-
You guys are hilariously predictable. I could write your posts for you.
Only because Trump is entirely consistent in his behavior.
You guys are also predictable. Your lips are so firmly attached to his backside, you can't see his massive personality flaws.
-
What is the best way for Trump to insure he is never censored again?
Owning the social network platform is a good way to go.
Then invest in Parler.
-
The big issue will be getting on smart phones Google and Apple have a monopoly that controls what apps can be downloaded.
Well, no... One tick mark on a droid and you can load your APKs from anywhere.
-
What is the best way for Trump to insure he is never censored again?
Owning the social network platform is a good way to go.
only if he owns the software, the servers and the routers, and the DNS servers, and...
-
The difference between you and me is that I judge Trump's actions. Some I like, some I don't. You, on the other hand, worship the man. Anything other than 100% support of everything he says and does, you view as blasphemy.
Bullshit @BassWrangler You judge Trump's actions by the way the wind is blowing on anonymous Internet forums. I judge the former President's actions by their content.
With a little luck, someday you'll be mature enough to know the difference.
-
75 million supporters will create a lot of critical mass.
He doesn't have "75 million supporters."
Remember that a good sized chunk of those supporters didn't support him; they just opposed the Democrat. The number of true-blue, die-hard supporters of Trump himself is probably closer to the 14 million who voted for him in the 2016 primaries. Let's say 20 million, just to factor in any non-Republicans.
I'm just failing to see here what a Trump social network is going to appeal to. How much of that core is going to bother with another social media account? If this is just going to be a vehicle for Donald Trump to put out what otherwise would be going into tweets... that's not really social media at all, that's just a blog.
The reason Parler was starting to take off before it got kneecapped was it offered something that a sizable chunk of social media users were looking for: posts in chronological order (instead of an algorithm) and not interfered with by biased "fact checkers." I was seeing people I know who were only mildly political signing up for Parler. It was on its way to building that critical mass I've been talking about.
Will Trump's "social network" offer that? Probably not. If it's going to be a top-down model, it poses the same problems and complaints that we have with current social media, just in a different flavor.
By the way, I'm just as skeptical of the Attention Hogg's pillow company as I am with this. So it's not just the person himself.
-
only if he owns the software, the servers and the routers, and the DNS servers, and...
As a billionaire, he can afford the expense.
-
As a billionaire, he can afford the expense.
Big hardware is big money... He better hedge that bet, because they will do all they can to tear it down. No matter to me one way or the other - I ain't twitterpated. Just speaking to the tech aspects.
-
Lol, and you thought JimRob was finicky. One week Trump will support this or that, next he will ban everything but himself. Yeah, count me out. Just now getting the other social medias to work worth a hoot (Mewe and Parler).
-
Bullshit @BassWrangler You judge Trump's actions by the way the wind is blowing on anonymous Internet forums. I judge the former President's actions by their content.
With a little luck, someday you'll be mature enough to know the difference.
Name one action of Trump’s that you disagreed with.
-
Name one action of Trump’s that you disagreed with.
I've played this game for years @HoustonSam And, I've answered this question ad nauseam.
Please, go play with someone else.
Thanks.
-
As much as NeverTrumpers brought the horror of Biden upon us, it is clear they have no conscience or shame. Their fingerprints are all over the results of the election, yet they stamp their feet and deny their own clearly known and easily observed handi-work. The last hardcore NEVERTRUMPER, like seen here, i engaged on the Coulter site for quite a while, until little by little he exposed himself for who and what he really was. By the way, he was a very determined Englishman, and he conned many, including some moderators, but not by the time the chatroom came to an end.
Seen this all before!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
God, Country, Family !
-
Bullshit @BassWrangler You judge Trump's actions by the way the wind is blowing on anonymous Internet forums. I judge the former President's actions by their content.
With a little luck, someday you'll be mature enough to know the difference.
My opinion on Trump has been 100% consistent. Point out an inconsistency.
-
I've played this game for years @HoustonSam And, I've answered this question ad nauseam.
Please, go play with someone else.
Thanks.
In other words, you have no counter to his argument.
-
Only because Trump is entirely consistent in his behavior.
You guys are also predictable. Your lips are so firmly attached to his backside, you can't see his massive personality flaws.
Whatever. I'm delighted with Trump's presidency, I like what he did while president, and I'd vote for him again if he runs.
Let see if you can deal with that without devolving to some juvenile put-down.
-
He doesn't have "75 million supporters."
Remember that a good sized chunk of those supporters didn't support him; they just opposed the Democrat. The number of true-blue, die-hard supporters of Trump himself is probably closer to the 14 million who voted for him in the 2016 primaries. Let's say 20 million, just to factor in any non-Republicans.
I'm just failing to see here what a Trump social network is going to appeal to. How much of that core is going to bother with another social media account? If this is just going to be a vehicle for Donald Trump to put out what otherwise would be going into tweets... that's not really social media at all, that's just a blog.
The reason Parler was starting to take off before it got kneecapped was it offered something that a sizable chunk of social media users were looking for: posts in chronological order (instead of an algorithm) and not interfered with by biased "fact checkers." I was seeing people I know who were only mildly political signing up for Parler. It was on its way to building that critical mass I've been talking about.
Will Trump's "social network" offer that? Probably not. If it's going to be a top-down model, it poses the same problems and complaints that we have with current social media, just in a different flavor.
By the way, I'm just as skeptical of the Attention Hogg's pillow company as I am with this. So it's not just the person himself.
If he didn't have 75 million supporters before he does now after 60+ days of Biden in office.
-
In other words, you have no counter to his argument.
Surely we can tolerate a few words of face-saving bravado from one prudent enough to abandon an unwinnable fight.
-
Surely we can tolerate a few words of face-saving bravado from one prudent enough to abandon an unwinnable fight.
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: She hasn't abandoned anything! And very likely won't. Her posting history tells the tale.
-
Surely we can tolerate a few words of face-saving bravado from one prudent enough to abandon an unwinnable fight.
While such consistency from other members is considered being principled.
-
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: She hasn't abandoned anything! And very likely won't. Her posting history tells the tale.
This is the third time she's abandoned an argument with me; in this case it's more accurate to say she declined it.
I actually have a lot of respect for her passion, intelligence, and loyalty; were I in a foxhole she's the kind of person I'd want with me.
-
This is the third time she's abandoned an argument with me; in this case it's more accurate to say she declined it.
I actually have a lot of respect for her passion, intelligence, and loyalty; were I in a foxhole she's the kind of person I'd want with me.
:yowsa: She is the most adamant Pro-Trump cheerleader I have ever seen and has been 100% consistent in that from day one. You are 100% correct about that. Her problem (IMHO) is in knowing when to leave the field. Simply winning isn't enough.
-
While such consistency from other members is considered being principled.
That's because it's based on... well, principles. :whistle:
-
That's because it's based on... well, principles. :whistle:
So you keep saying.
'Cept where Reagan is concerned?
-
That's because it's based on... well, principles. :whistle:
.....rather than personal loyalty, as admirable as loyalty might be.
-
So you keep saying.
'Cept where Reagan is concerned?
Indeed, where Reagan is concerned too.
-
.....rather than personal loyalty, as admirable as loyalty might be.
Right. Principles, not princes.
-
Indeed, where Reagan is concerned too.
Then we all share those kinds of principles. Those that understand and accept that in this world compromise is often necessary.
-
Then we all share those kinds of principles. One's that understands and accepts that in this world compromise is often necessary.
I never said that it wasn't.
-
I never said that it wasn't.
:pigs fly:
-
In other words, you have no counter to his argument.
No, in other words @BassWrangler I have played this game for years and have answered this question ad nauseam.
I also don't play the "in other words" game. You should know this about me by now.
-
:pigs fly:
888high58888
-
:pigs fly:
TRUE STORY. I am HAPPY to compromise... Right on the other side of those Conservative principles. And that leaves a whole lot of room for compromise.
-
As a billionaire, he can afford the expense.
I doubt he'll have to. happy77
-
My opinion on Trump has been 100% consistent. Point out an inconsistency.
88devil
-
:yowsa: She is the most adamant Pro-Trump cheerleader I have ever seen and has been 100% consistent in that from day one. You are 100% correct about that. Her problem (IMHO) is in knowing when to leave the field. Simply winning isn't enough.
True Believers like @Right_in_Virginia spent 4 years talking about how the "4D chess" and how Trump was on top of everything. We won so much we lost everything, and now are facing a veritable torrent of freedom-ending legislation from the Democrats.
As I've said before, I appreciate Trump's good qualities: his loyalty to those who elected him, his standing up to the Dems and the media. But he proved to be a terribly ineffective leader. His only real legacy is handing control over to the Dems. Some folks will hide behind the voter fraud claims as an excuse for all that, but in the end, Trump was in charge while the Dems planned and executed this. This wasn't something that happened election day - this was something that went on to a lesser extent in 2016, and which the Dems were talking about openly right up to the election. Trump wasn't prepared for it, and the blame is his for not having a plan to head it off at the pass.
It's mind-boggling to me that people are still looking to this guy to save us from the mess he is the architect of.
Hard pass on any more of what got us here.
-
True Believers like @Right_in_Virginia spent 4 years talking about how the "4D chess" and how Trump was on top of everything. We won so much we lost everything, and now are facing a veritable torrent of freedom-ending legislation from the Democrats.
As I've said before, I appreciate Trump's good qualities: his loyalty to those who elected him, his standing up to the Dems and the media. But he proved to be a terribly ineffective leader. His only real legacy is handing control over to the Dems. Some folks will hide behind the voter fraud claims as an excuse for all that, but in the end, Trump was in charge while the Dems planned and executed this. This wasn't something that happened election day - this was something that went on to a lesser extent in 2016, and which the Dems were talking about openly right up to the election. Trump wasn't prepared for it, and the blame is his for not having a plan to head it off at the pass.
It's mind-boggling to me that people are still looking to this guy to save us from the mess he is the architect of.
Hard pass on any more of what got us here.
Trump was a threat to business as usual in Washington and was not going to be allowed to remain in the presidency no matter what it took to remove him. There is only one party inside the beltway in Washington and they were going to protect their playground no matter what it took! Even to the point of destroying what little remained of this once-great republic.
-
I thought competition in the marketplace was a good thing. Capitalism, and all that. :shrug:
-
I thought competition in the marketplace was a good thing. Capitalism, and all that. :shrug:
Well, it's the only economic system that has ever really worked on this planet!
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fpicture-quotes%2Fquote-prior-to-capitalism-the-way-people-amassed-great-wealth-was-by-looting-plundering-and-walter-e-williams-50-2-0242.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
-
Trump was a threat to business as usual in Washington and was not going to be allowed to remain in the presidency no matter what it took to remove him. There is only one party inside the beltway in Washington and they were going to protect their playground no matter what it took! Even to the point of destroying what little remained of this once-great republic.
@Bigun - 100% agree he was a threat to the establishment in Washington. But don't you think he could have been on top of that earlier on - or least getting the message out to the people that this was a problem? I feel like he spent almost his entire presidency reacting to things and struggling with the basics like appointing and retaining good staff.
-
I thought competition in the marketplace was a good thing. Capitalism, and all that. :shrug:
Yeah but, TRUMP.
It’s a wonder to me how many around here have not yet noticed the beam in their own eye.
-
:yowsa: She is the most adamant Pro-Trump cheerleader I have ever seen and has been 100% consistent in that from day one. You are 100% correct about that. Her problem (IMHO) is in knowing when to leave the field. Simply winning isn't enough.
Wow. You left the cave just to dump on me --- and without the common courtesy of pinging me.
You've turned out to be quite the gentleman @Bigun --- (I hope you know the sarcasm tag is implied.)
-
@Bigun - 100% agree he was a threat to the establishment in Washington. But don't you think he could have been on top of that earlier on - or least getting the message out to the people that this was a problem? I feel like he spent almost his entire presidency reacting to things and struggling with the basics like appointing and retaining good staff.
I have neither the time nor inclination to write a book here @BassWrangler but it is my FIRM opinion that Trump did about as well as he could given the headwinds he was facing from every direction. Republicans COULD have chosen to help him but preserving their precious swamp was FAR more important to them than actually doing what they had been promising us they would do for 40 years.
I also believe that had Ted Cruz been elected the very same thing, if not worse, would have been done to him. Hillary was the selected one to put the cap on the Communist takeover of this country and by damn she will do that even if it has to be done vicariously through Xiden and his whore.
-
Wow. You left the cave just to dump on me --- and without the common courtesy of pinging me.
You've turned out to be quite the gentleman @Bigun --- (I hope you know the sarcasm tag is implied.)
If you think what I said there is dumping on you @Right_in_Virginia you do not understand the term.
-
If you think what I said there is dumping on you @Right_in_Virginia you do not understand the term.
Bullshit @Bigun You lost me at "her problem is ....."
-
I also believe that had Ted Cruz been elected the very same thing, if not worse, would have been done to him.
Maybe, but unlikely. Cruz had a political army at his back in the TEA Party. Tump had nothing. Just Tump. And a whole bunch of voters sure that he could walk on water.
-
Bullshit @Bigun You lost me at "her problem is ....."
OK! @Right_in_Virginia but that IS how I see it.
I actually admire your tenacity but not your tactics. Trying to exclude other points of view is NOT a thing to admire.
-
I have neither the time nor inclination to write a book here @BassWrangler but it is my FIRM opinion that Trump did about as well as he could given the headwinds he was facing from every direction. Republicans COULD have chosen to help him but preserving their precious swamp was FAR more important to them than actually doing what they had been promising us they would do for 40 years.
I also believe that had Ted Cruz been elected the very same thing, if not worse, would have been done to him. Hillary was the selected one to put the cap on the Communist takeover of this country and by damn she will do that even if it has to be done vicariously through Xiden and his whore.
@Bigun
I'll concede your point that whomever the candidate was, the Dems and their establishment buddies would have gone after them like they did Trump. But would that candidate have given the Dems so much ammunition to work with? I would argue the answer to that is: no. Also, another area where I think another candidate would have been different is in the basic leadership skills: attracting, hiring, and retaining good staff being chief among them. Trump failed at this in spectacular fashion.
-
As much as NeverTrumpers brought the horror of Biden upon us, it is clear they have no conscience or shame. Their fingerprints are all over the results of the election, yet they stamp their feet and deny their own clearly known and easily observed handi-work. The last hardcore NEVERTRUMPER, like seen here, i engaged on the Coulter site for quite a while, until little by little he exposed himself for who and what he really was. By the way, he was a very determined Englishman, and he conned many, including some moderators, but not by the time the chatroom came to an end.
Seen this all before!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
God, Country, Family !
"NeverTrumpers brought the horror of Biden upon us,"
Trump brought the horror of Biden upon us.
-
OK! @Right_in_Virginia but that IS how I see it.
I actually admire your tenacity but not your tactics. Trying to exclude other points of view is NOT a thing to admire.
What POV have I tried to exclude @Bigun ... be specific.
-
Maybe, but unlikely. Cruz had a political army at his back in the TEA Party. Tump had nothing. Just Tump. And a whole bunch of voters sure that he could walk on water.
NO! He did not, and no one that I know thought Trump could walk on water. I quit the Republican party after more than 40 years in their boiler room over what they did at their 2016 national convention (changing the rules in the middle of the game does NOT sit well with me) but a Cruz presidency would have fared no better than Trump did and maybe even worse. And besides that, Ted Cruz is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
-
Maybe, but unlikely. Cruz had a political army at his back in the TEA Party. Tump had nothing. Just Tump. And a whole bunch of voters sure that he could walk on water.
The Tea Party remnants went to Trump.
-
It's hard to infer people's tone / intent on text-only channels. But if it's not clear, I don't have any personal animus towards folks here - even @Right_in_Virginia . I just disagree very strongly with the blind allegiance to Trump. But it's OK to disagree.
-
@Bigun
I'll concede your point that whomever the candidate was, the Dems and their establishment buddies would have gone after them like they did Trump. But would that candidate have given the Dems so much ammunition to work with? I would argue the answer to that is: no. Also, another area where I think another candidate would have been different is in the basic leadership skills: attracting, hiring, and retaining good staff being chief among them. Trump failed at this in spectacular fashion.
IMHO Trump used the ONLY tools he had to great effect. The media would have eaten his lunch early on had he not been able to go over their heads immediately via social media. This is exactly why they had to find a way to take those tools away from him.
-
What POV have I tried to exclude @Bigun ... be specific.
Trump only rooms ring any bells @Right_in_Virginia
-
@Bigun
I'll concede your point that whomever the candidate was, the Dems and their establishment buddies would have gone after them like they did Trump. But would that candidate have given the Dems so much ammunition to work with? I would argue the answer to that is: no. Also, another area where I think another candidate would have been different is in the basic leadership skills: attracting, hiring, and retaining good staff being chief among them. Trump failed at this in spectacular fashion.
:thumbsup:
-
The Tea Party remnants went to Trump.
None that I know. Cruz was their candidate, and after what Tumpy did to Cruz... Best to leave it at exactly none that I know
And I am still actively meeting with TEA Party folks.
-
It's hard to infer people's tone / intent on text-only channels. But if it's not clear, I don't have any personal animus towards folks here - even @Right_in_Virginia . I just disagree very strongly with the blind allegiance to Trump. But it's OK to disagree.
You are right about that (the text-only thing) and I also have no personal animus against anyone here. Separating the forest from the trees is sometimes a very difficult task.
-
NO! He did not, and no one that I know thought Trump could walk on water. I quit the Republican party after more than 40 years in their boiler room over what they did at their 2016 national convention (changing the rules in the middle of the game does NOT sit well with me) but a Cruz presidency would have fared no better than Trump did and maybe even worse. And besides that, Ted Cruz is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
Easy to say, but we'll never know. Cruz was organized, even up here. Tumpy, not so much
-
NO! He did not, and no one that I know thought Trump could walk on water. I quit the Republican party after more than 40 years in their boiler room over what they did at their 2016 national convention (changing the rules in the middle of the game does NOT sit well with me) but a Cruz presidency would have fared no better than Trump did and maybe even worse. And besides that, Ted Cruz is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
"Ted Cruz is NOT a Natural Born Citizen."
:facepalm2:
-
"Ted Cruz is NOT a Natural Born Citizen."
:facepalm2:
Just for you @goatprairie:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
-
Trump only rooms ring any bells @Right_in_Virginia
If you're referring to the 2016 sub-forum requested of me to moderate by @mystery-ak -- I suggest you get over it @Bigun Or can I expect you to carry this unhinged animosity for the next five years?
-
If you're referring to the 2016 sub-forum requested of me to moderate by @mystery-ak -- I suggest you get over it @Bigun Or can I expect you to carry this unhinged animosity for the next five years?
I do have a long memory @Right_in_Virginia and attempts to silence other viewpoints do not sit well with me.
-
@Bigun
I'll concede your point that whomever the candidate was, the Dems and their establishment buddies would have gone after them like they did Trump. But would that candidate have given the Dems so much ammunition to work with? I would argue the answer to that is: no. Also, another area where I think another candidate would have been different is in the basic leadership skills: attracting, hiring, and retaining good staff being chief among them. Trump failed at this in spectacular fashion.
The "Trump Train" was supposed to sweep all before it because of Trump's visionary omnicompetence and because "he's not a politician." But when he failed to bend Congress to his will first-class ticket holders on the train told us he couldn't be blamed because "he's not a politician." First it was an argument that he would succeed, then it was an excuse for failure. All events had to be refracted through the prism of Trump's blamelessness.
The DC establishment definitely had it in for Trump because he threatened their sinecures; actually the Trump movement threatened their sinecures, Trump himself not so much (how much of The Swamp did he simply fire? Damn little). One can argue that had Trump been more effective in tearing down the bureaucracy's fortifications it would have counter-attacked more forcefully. But his administration was sabotaged from the get-go, he was already lied about systematically every night by the MSM, and he was impeached twice on ridiculous false charges; what more could they have done to him that they didn't do? He had much to gain and little to lose by systematically dismissing Executive Agency functionaries who stood in the way of his agenda *and* by vetoing spending bills that continued the bankruptcy of our children past the third generation. And I've read it right here that Trump is the one with the steel spine; steel Twitter thumbs seems more like it. Rather than making decisions and being accountable for them he played to the Social Media gallery.
Had he truly been the bulletproof master of flying, invisible, 9-dimensional stealth jedi chess that we were told about, he could have found the sweet spot of building an alliance larger than his own narcissism and using that alliance to drain the swamp. But he simply was not that bulletproof master. That failure doesn't make him a bad person, it just means that his sycophants raised expectations that were impossible to fulfill, just as Obama's sycophants had done eight years earlier.
What distinguishes Reagan from Trump is that Reagan persuaded the entire country to come along with him, to the tune of a 49 state re-election landslide, and he bequeathed a strong enough legacy that his successor could also be elected. There is no successor to Trump because there is nothing to which anyone can succeed; the "Trump Train" derailed and lies strewn in wreckage because the engineer couldn't keep it on the tracks. A lot of that wreckage I hope can be salvaged in the future, but right now, it's just wreckage.
I don't blame the engineer for being who he is, and I voted to keep him in place. I do blame the people who continue telling us the engineer is more than who he is and that we should continue following him.
-
The "Trump Train" was supposed to sweep all before it because of Trump's visionary omnicompetence and because "he's not a politician." But when he failed to bend Congress to his will first-class ticket holders on the train told us he couldn't be blamed because "he's not a politician." First it was an argument that he would succeed, then it was an excuse for failure. All events had to be refracted through the prism of Trump's blamelessness.
The DC establishment definitely had it in for Trump because he threatened their sinecures; actually the Trump movement threatened their sinecures, Trump himself not so much (how much of The Swamp did he simply fire? Damn little). One can argue that had Trump been more effective in tearing down the bureaucracy's fortifications it would have counter-attacked more forcefully. But his administration was sabotaged from the get-go, he was already lied about systematically every night by the MSM, and he was impeached twice on ridiculous false charges; what more could they have done to him that they didn't do? He had much to gain and little to lose by systematically dismissing Executive Agency functionaries who stood in the way of his agenda *and* by vetoing spending bills that continued the bankruptcy of our children past the third generation. And I've read it right here that Trump is the one with the steel spine; steel Twitter thumbs seems more like it. Rather than making decisions and being accountable for them he played to the Social Media gallery.
Had he truly been the bulletproof master of flying, invisible, 9-dimensional stealth jedi chess that we were told about, he could have found the sweet spot of building an alliance larger than his own narcissism and using that alliance to drain the swamp. But he simply was not that bulletproof master. That failure doesn't make him a bad person, it just means that his sycophants raised expectations that were impossible to fulfill, just as Obama's sycophants had done eight years earlier.
What distinguishes Reagan from Trump is that Reagan persuaded the entire country to come along with him, to the tune of a 49 state re-election landslide, and he bequeathed a strong enough legacy that his successor could also be elected. There is no successor to Trump because there is nothing to which anyone can succeed; the "Trump Train" derailed and lies strewn in wreckage because the engineer couldn't keep it on the tracks. A lot of that wreckage I hope can be salvaged in the future, but right now, it's just wreckage.
I don't blame the engineer for being who he is, and I voted to keep him in place. I do blame the people who continue telling us the engineer is more than who he is and that we should continue following him.
I understand that argument @HoustonSam and agree with a large portion of it. He definitely erred in deferring to the likes of Mitch McConnell and others of his ilk.
-
Please limit the conversation here to the topic of the thread, and not to bashing fellow TBR members. This means all of you, by the way.
-
I do have a long memory @Right_in_Virginia and attempts to silence other viewpoints do not sit well with me.
Then you misunderstand the reason Myst asked for my help with that sub forum @Bigun It wasn't an attempt to silence other viewpoints, it was an attempt to stop silencing the pro-Trump voices. I'll assume your long memory will remind you just what the climate was on the forum back then ... and how pro-Trump Briefers were jumping ship in droves, including one of the co-owners.
It was an unpopular job, but someone had to do it to keep the Forum from imploding on itself. I don't expect gratitude, but cutting me some slack would be nice. happy77
-
Let's stop re-hashing 2016..that's 5 years ago...we have enough problems right now with the Biden Presidency and his Admin...let's concentrate on that..
-
Then you misunderstand the reason Myst asked for my help with that sub forum @Bigun It wasn't an attempt to silence other viewpoints, it was an attempt to give stop silencing the pro-Trump voices. I'll assume your long memory will remind you just what the climate was on the forum back then ... and how pro-Trump Briefers were jumping ship in droves, including one of the co-owners.
It was an unpopular job, but someone had to do it to keep the Forum from imploding on itself. I don't expect gratitude, but cutting me some slack would be nice. happy77
I'm well aware of what the atmosphere was and have made my thoughts about that episode clear to everyone including @mystery-ak . The old addage "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" applies as far as I'm concerned. @Right_in_Virginia
-
I'm well aware of what the atmosphere was and have made my thoughts about that episode clear to everyone including @mystery-ak . The old addage "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" applies as far as I'm concerned. @Right_in_Virginia
Then you've limited understanding of the motivation and the outcome. But, hey, I'll defend your right to be wrong, even with this.
Ciao @Bigun Feel free to move about the rest of your day happy77
-
I feel bad for those Parler guys. They worked their ass off to create a great platform. It was taking off like gang busters after the pre and post-election censorship from Twatter, the Amazon, Apple, and Google screwed them. Now they are back, without the momentum, and Trump, in typical selfish fashion, announces his own platform.
Sends a great message to Rumble and other folks looking to build a parallel, conservative-friendly, economy: don't bother.
Hmmmm....
....pay more attention to the rivalry between Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon in Atlas Shrugged, between all the capitalist producer-characters in that book.
Business is supposed to be cut-throat.
Friends in business produce collusion between Fakebook, Twatter, and Rodents.
-
It's hard to infer people's tone / intent on text-only channels. But if it's not clear, I don't have any personal animus towards folks here - even @Right_in_Virginia . I just disagree very strongly with the blind allegiance to Trump. But it's OK to disagree.
As long as you characterize it as 'blind loyalty' you appear to be the reasonable one.
But have you considered it might not be 'blind loyalty' that motivates those of us who have a finer appreciation of the man? Or would that unduly complicate the issue?
-
"Ted Cruz is NOT a Natural Born Citizen."
:facepalm2:
Yes, he is.
Under the laws in effect at the time of his birth, he's a natural born citizen.
Different laws existed when the Kenyan Marxist was spawned in Kenya. His mother was not old enough to confer citizenship and he was never a natural born US citizen by the laws in effect when he was spawned. Which is why he had to produce not just one, but two forgeries in lieu of his real birth certificate.
-
As long as you characterize it as 'blind loyalty' you appear to be the reasonable one.
But have you considered it might not be 'blind loyalty' that motivates those of us who have a finer appreciation of the man? Or would that unduly complicate the issue?
I've read many, but I am sure not all, of the arguments justifying continued belief in the man. I don't find them at all compelling. It seems, like much of liberalism, to be based on belief in "facts" that are not evident. I don't claim to be one, but I've worked with some extremely good leaders in the past (and present). When I look at them, and I look at Trump, I see more differences than I do similarities.
I'll probably regret this, but let's take one example. How do you blame Trump's inability to hire and retain good staff on the swamp? How is that not Trump's responsibility?
-
Easy to say, but we'll never know. Cruz was organized, even up here. Tumpy, not so much
Hmmm.....so what you seem to saying is that organization doesn't count for squat since the less organized person won both the primaries...hands down and easily, and the elections, both of them, hands down and easily.
The ones that had the better organization in the end were the organized criminals that conspired to steal the election and stage an illegal coup.
-
I am SO looking forward to the MAGA Platform ... :smokin:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1dvPg82/Ex-CPc6-FXAAEINb1.jpg)
Re: Trump's memo.
If his claim that Team Usurper could complete the wall "in a matter of weeks", this begs the question of why then didn't Trump order it rushed to completion months earlier?
All the estimates were saying the Wall would take another year or two to complete.
Then again, the wall didn't have to be a visible physical structure. I'd be perfectly happy if it was invisible physical land mines.
-
I've read many, but I am sure not all, of the arguments justifying continued belief in the man. I don't find them at all compelling. It seems, like much of liberalism, to be based on belief in "facts" that are not evident. I don't claim to be one, but I've worked with some extremely good leaders in the past (and present). When I look at them, and I look at Trump, I see more differences than I do similarities.
I'll probably regret this, but let's take one example. How do you blame Trump's inability to hire and retain good staff on the swamp? How is that not Trump's responsibility?
I'll attempt an answer, although I'll probably regret it.
Trump came to the White House an outsider with almost zero beltway connections. He depended almost entirely upon the GOPe for staffing advise for obvious reasons. The same GOPe with a stake in the swamp as it is currently configured.
Its as simple as that. Is he responsible? Yes, after all he was president. Is it unreasonable to cut the guy a break given the conditions he was operating under? I guess whether you are inclined to depends upon where you stand on him personally. Those who don't care for him are happy to slam him for it. Those of us who agreed with most of what he attempted to do policy wise are most apt to forgive some amount of ineptitude.
Personally I think the latter is the more reasonable position to have.
-
If we wanted to crap on a thread just for the sake of crapping on a thread, trust me, it would look a whole lot worse than the statement in question.
I don't think any of us would mind if Trump were to use his clout to incubate the upstarts who have been working to establish social media channels that aren't manipulated to push the left-wing agenda. If Trump had done what, for example, Dan Bongino has been doing and investing in these sites like Parler and Rumble, that kind of money would provide the robust infrastructure that would have allowed Parler to keep operating.
The fact that Trump constantly sees the need to set fire to all of his competition and control everything himself is rearing its ugly head again.
Capitalism.
To learn it is to love it.
-
Social media requires a critical mass to be successful: everyone's on it because everyone's on it. In that sense, throwing more competitors to cannibalize your market is going to end up causing division and prevent any of them from becoming successful. Think of any huge primary: 2014 South Carolina, for example. We had countless primary challengers but none of them caught any traction and Lindsey Graham defeated all of them combined.
So what does Trump have that does not exist in this market, that people are going to want to adopt? What is he going to bring to the table that will ensure that this venture doesn't end up like Trump Steaks or the countless other failed attempts to cash in on his cult of personality?
ummm.....he has Trump's personality.
That'll be enough to attract a sizeable majority of his 75 million counted voters and the several million other voters who were switched by Dominion into Bidet numbers.
-
I'll attempt an answer, although I'll probably regret it.
Trump came to the White House an outsider with almost zero beltway connections. He depended almost entirely upon the GOPe for staffing advise for obvious reasons. The same GOPe with a stake in the swamp as it is currently configured.
Its as simple as that. Is he responsible? Yes, after all he was president. Is it unreasonable to cut the guy a break given the conditions he was operating under? I guess whether you are inclined to depends upon where you stand on him personally. Those who don't care for him are happy to slam him for it. Those of us who agreed with most of what he attempted to do policy wise are most apt to forgive some amount of ineptitude.
Personally I think the latter is the more reasonable position to have.
Thanks, for that, @skeeter !
Unbelievable that even after living/experiencing a full 4 year term led by this man, we're still asked to defend him.
-
Only because Trump is entirely consistent in his behavior.
You guys are also predictable. Your lips are so firmly attached to his backside, you can't see his massive personality flaws.
Yeah, Trump was consistent patriot.
Now we have a consistent geriatric patient wandering about the tarmac and stumbling up the stairs.
Soon we'll have a consistent slut instead of the consistent geriatric patient.
Before Trump we had a consistent illegal alien marxist, a consistent drunken harridan, a consistent rapist and serial molester, a consistent perjurer, a consist Gaia Con-man, and the Rodents are nothing but consistently criminal and consistently evil.
So I really love Trump's consistency.
-
As much as NeverTrumpers brought the horror of Biden upon us, it is clear they have no conscience or shame. Their fingerprints are all over the results of the election, yet they stamp their feet and deny their own clearly known and easily observed handi-work. The last hardcore NEVERTRUMPER, like seen here, i engaged on the Coulter site for quite a while, until little by little he exposed himself for who and what he really was. By the way, he was a very determined Englishman, and he conned many, including some moderators, but not by the time the chatroom came to an end.
Seen this all before!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
God, Country, Family !
Never Trumpers want an unlimited and permanent holocaust on unborn babies.
-
Thanks, for that, @skeeter !
Unbelievable that even after living/experiencing a full 4 year term led by this man, we're still asked to defend him.
All I ask is people who should know better stop singing off the rat media's sheet music.
-
I'll attempt an answer, although I'll probably regret it.
Trump came to the White House an outsider with almost zero beltway connections. He depended almost entirely upon the GOPe for staffing advise for obvious reasons. The same GOPe with a stake in the swamp as it is currently configured.
Its as simple as that. Is he responsible? Yes, after all he was president. Is it unreasonable to cut the guy a break given the conditions he was operating under? I guess whether you are inclined to depends upon where you stand on him personally. Those who don't care for him are happy to slam him for it. Those of us who agreed with most of what he attempted to do policy wise are most apt to forgive some amount of ineptitude.
Personally I think the latter is the more reasonable position to have.
Thanks for the polite and well-reasoned reply. I understand your position, and why it's tempting to forgive the ineptitude; it was great to finally have someone who supports your positions in office, after all.
And I agree it's reasonable to cut him a break... for the first year or two of his administration. But he was having these issues (in fact it got worse) right up until the day he left. And bottom line, as I tell my sons constantly, what matters is results, not excuses.
-
Thanks for the polite and well-reasoned reply. I understand your position, and why it's tempting to forgive the ineptitude; it was great to finally have someone who supports your positions in office, after all.
And I agree it's reasonable to cut him a break... for the first year or two of his administration. But he was having these issues (in fact it got worse) right up until the day he left. And bottom line, as I tell my sons constantly, what matters is results, not excuses.
You asked for an explanation and when you get one diminish it an 'excuse'. Perhaps it is this kind of shot that provokes less than polite responses among Trump supporters. Just a tip.
-
Hmmm.....so what you seem to saying is that organization doesn't count for squat since the less organized person won both the primaries...hands down and easily, and the elections, both of them, hands down and easily.
Right... Populism can always take the field. It just can't govern. Governance matters more than getting the lemmings to all go one way.
-
@Bigun - 100% agree he was a threat to the establishment in Washington. But don't you think he could have been on top of that earlier on - or least getting the message out to the people that this was a problem? I feel like he spent almost his entire presidency reacting to things and struggling with the basics like appointing and retaining good staff.
Trump had no problem appointing his staff.
He had serious problems getting the Rodents and RINOs in the Senate to confirm them.
The same RINO senators that stonewalled Trump's appointments rushed right through for the two previous BHO terms and the present one.
-
You asked for an explanation and when you get one diminish it an 'excuse'. Perhaps it is this kind of shot that provokes less than polite responses among Trump supporters. Just a tip.
You implied it was an excuse in your comment - "Those of us who agreed with most of what he attempted to do policy wise are most apt to forgive some amount of ineptitude"
Honestly, I've never met a more thin-skinned group of people than the hard-core Trump supporters here. Please just ignore me - I have zero desire to have further conversations with you.
-
@Bigun
I'll concede your point that whomever the candidate was, the Dems and their establishment buddies would have gone after them like they did Trump. But would that candidate have given the Dems so much ammunition to work with?
No.
The candidates the RINOs and Principled Conservative traitors wanted (Jeb!) would have meekly taken orders from Pelosi and Schumer and the Media and the Rodents would have STILL shredded the wimp.
Trump not only didn't put up with their crap, he called their crap what it is, crap, and all those people with Principles just happen to be susceptible to the Vapors, too.
So screw'em. How they FEEL is irrelevant. Trump was damned good and his ownership of his own social media platform means the Rodents won't be able to censor him again. And thus do the Principled Conservative look forward to another bout of Vaporing. It's Tony The Tiger Greeeeaaat!
I would argue the answer to that is: no. Also, another area where I think another candidate would have been different is in the basic leadership skills: attracting, hiring, and retaining good staff being chief among them. Trump failed at this in spectacular fashion.
[/quote]
-
Yes, he is.
Under the laws in effect at the time of his birth, he's a natural born citizen.
Different laws existed when the Kenyan Marxist was spawned in Kenya. His mother was not old enough to confer citizenship and he was never a natural born US citizen by the laws in effect when he was spawned. Which is why he had to produce not just one, but two forgeries in lieu of his real birth certificate.
If your citizenship depends on ANY piece of legislation ever enacted you are NOT a "natural born citizen".
I was born in this country of parents (plural) who were citizens when I was born. I am a natural born citizen jus soli and jus sanguinis
-
None that I know. Cruz was their candidate, and after what Tumpy did to Cruz... Best to leave it at exactly none that I know
And I am still actively meeting with TEA Party folks.
Cruz started to lie and lost my vote.
I went to Trump only after deciding that Cruz wasn't ready for prime time.
-
If your citizenship depends on ANY piece of legislation ever enacted you are NOT a "natural born citizen".
I was born in this country of parents (plural) who were citizens when I was born. I am a natural born citizen jus soli and jus sanguinis
That's called, in technical terms, bull feces.
It's always been up to Congress to decide what was meant by "natural born citizen" since the term was not defined in the Constitution.
You see that special part in the Constitution that defined what the power of Congress were, Article I, Section 8? Refer to Clause 4.
-
That's called, in technical terms, bull feces.
It's always been up to Congress to decide what was meant by "natural born citizen" since the term was not defined in the Constitution.
You see that special part in the Constitution that defined what the power of Congress were, Article I, Section 8? Refer to Clause 4.
What I posted is, in technical terms, a FACT.
The issue has been debated here ad nausea and your side lost!
SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
-
As for principles notice, i notice RINOs and NeverTrumpers have nearly the same hardcore principles strangely in alignment with a great many socialist-Communists, and just as determined. They are highly principled, just alternative with an abandonment of morals on an all to frequent happenstance. They in league with Biden,will be the death of you, just saying. Remember despite their being in league with biden, they don't know him. They wouldn't lie to you, deceive you, con you, anymore that your average democrat!
-
You implied it was an excuse in your comment - "Those of us who agreed with most of what he attempted to do policy wise are most apt to forgive some amount of ineptitude"
Honestly, I've never met a more thin-skinned group of people than the hard-core Trump supporters here. Please just ignore me - I have zero desire to have further conversations with you.
Lol holy crap. Thin skinned vs totally lacking in self awareness.
Anyway, your wish is my command.
-
What I posted is, in technical terms, a FACT.
Really?
What part of the Constitution defines "natural born citizen"?
If what you said is "fact", then you have some Constitutional citation in substantiation.
Otherwise, it's not a fact, it's a feces.
See where I cited the Constitution? That established the fact that it's up to Congress to answer questions regarding naturalization.
I cited a FACT, not a feces.
The issue has been debated here ad nausea and your side lost!
Since I wasn't here, I wasn't part of whatever sides existed.
And since Cruz is a natural born citizen under the law, I have no idea which farmed piled up all that manure for you to stand upon. You better hope it doesn't rain while you're up there, I hear that stuff loses all shear stiffness when it gets wet.
Since you have, for the first time ever, been informed that it's the CONGRESS that defines matters of naturalization, and in fact, the courts are not supposed to define terms used in law (guess what legislatures exist to do...?), court rulings on the matter aren't particularly relevant.
Next you'll be telling us that birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment is some kind of thing, too, because that's what other Principled Conservatives tell you to believe.
-
Really?
What part of the Constitution defines "natural born citizen"?
If what you said is "fact", then you have some Constitutional citation in substantiation.
Otherwise, it's not a fact, it's a feces.
See where I cited the Constitution? That established the fact that it's up to Congress to answer questions regarding naturalization.
I cited a FACT, not a feces.
Since I wasn't here, I wasn't part of whatever sides existed.
And since Cruz is a natural born citizen under the law, I have no idea which farmed piled up all that manure for you to stand upon. You better hope it doesn't rain while you're up there, I hear that stuff loses all shear stiffness when it gets wet.
Since you have, for the first time ever, been informed that it's the CONGRESS that defines matters of naturalization, and in fact, the courts are not supposed to define terms used in law (guess what legislatures exist to do...?), court rulings on the matter aren't particularly relevant.
Next you'll be telling us that birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment is some kind of thing, too, because that's what other Principled Conservatives tell you to believe.
Cruz IS unquestionably a citizen but definitely NOT a natural-born citizen in the manner the founders understood!
St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in his 1803 edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, that the natural born citizen clause is 'a happy means of security against foreign influence' and that '[t]he admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against.' In a footnote, Tucker wrote that naturalized citizens have the same rights as the natural-born except "they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States."
-
Cruz IS unquestionably a citizen but definitely NOT a natural-born citizen in the manner the founders understood!
Yeah, that's why the Founders left it up to the Congress to define the term in law.
And that law states that since Mrs Cruz was a US citizen at his birth, she had the magic power to declare her vagina US soil for purposes of defining natural citizenship.
Case closed, per the law.
Obama was not and is not a natural born citizen because:
1) he was not born in the US, AND
2) His mother wasn't old enough to have similarly magical vagina, AND
3) He was not raised as a US citizen from birth. He was raised as a muslim future marxist in Indonesia.
The word "and" has meaning.
Especially when it's capitalized.
AND it's really super important if it's bolded and italicized.
AND I'm not especially interested in the rantings of a man who claims to be a judge but can't base his arguments on the whole text of the Constitution.
-
Cruz started to lie and lost my vote.
I went to Trump only after deciding that Cruz wasn't ready for prime time.
I was willing to pull the lever for Cruz - First Republican president I'd have voted for in a looong time.
Tumpy, not so much.
-
I love how a Trump thread took a 280 to a Vagina thread. Only on The TBR
I want to know if Teds mom had a shaved beaver in Canada or when she came to the USA.
-
As good Communist have long said, you need to get control of terms and change them to mean what you want, it confuses your opponents and lets you get away with a great deal more. Like NeverTrumpers CONSERVATIVE, what they describe as Conservative probably wouldn't get 10% of the vote, guess who would benefit from that for decades?! Since democrats started acting like junkyard dogs-no moral restraints they have now gone so far as they no longer want an Constitutional restraints either. Millions of whites have turned into white guilt fools, spineless and gutless as that is. People don't want to fight the destruction, they want to accept being dogs and a leash, and whimper and whine now and then in hopes of getting some approval from a p.c.master that loathes them. Its all so tawdry, sad and pathetic. Their addiction to lies and liars as well. Its so easy to seen, demonstrated here regularly.
-
Yeah, that's why the Founders left it up to the Congress to define the term in law.
And that law states that since Mrs Cruz was a US citizen at his birth, she had the magic power to declare her vagina US soil for purposes of defining natural citizenship.
Case closed, per the law.
Obama was not and is not a natural born citizen because:
1) he was not born in the US, AND
2) His mother wasn't old enough to have similarly magical vagina, AND
3) He was not raised as a US citizen from birth. He was raised as a muslim future marxist in Indonesia.
The word "and" has meaning.
Especially when it's capitalized.
AND it's really super important if it's bolded and italicized.
AND I'm not especially interested in the rantings of a man who claims to be a judge but can't base his arguments on the whole text of the Constitution.
SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
And that Judge, St. George Tucker, was never once challenged on his interpretations by any member of the founding era.
-
Okay, how many orders do we need to place?
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0257/1983/2653/products/d20a5b0d7ab27f2e788589ebe9476a87_9f37c399-2327-4c64-bc96-0926db735fcb_1024x1024.jpg?v=1616434244)
Buy it here (https://bringammo.com/collections/new/products/el-naranja-the-orange-man-premium-t-shirt?variant=39426039414975)
-
I was willing to pull the lever for Cruz - First Republican president I'd have voted for in a looong time.
Tumpy, not so much.
That's because Trump was the better candidate, so you didn't like him.
We Americans understand what it means to have "Principles".
And now Trump is going to build himself his own loud-hailer and nobody will be able to take it away from him again.
What a pity, huh?
Only the Americans will want to hear him.
-
That's because Trump was the better candidate, so you didn't like him.
We Americans understand what it means to have "Principles".
Suuure you do...
And now Trump is going to build himself his own loud-hailer and nobody will be able to take it away from him again.
What a pity, huh?
Only the Americans will want to hear him.
Yeah... Go buy some of his steaks while you're at it.
-
Suuure you do...
I clearly do.
What's wrong with him building a social media platform? You wouldn't be afraid of it if you thought it was going to fail.
See?
I do know the emotional states of Principled Conservatives (tm)
-
I clearly do.
What's wrong with him building a social media platform? You wouldn't be afraid of it if you thought it was going to fail.
See?
I do know the emotional states of Principled Conservatives (tm)
Don't care about it one way or the other. I ain't the twitterpated sort.
-
Yes, he is.
Under the laws in effect at the time of his birth, he's a natural born citizen.
Actually @Sled Dog the laws in effect at the time of Cruz's birth make him a naturalized citizen. No natural born American requires a law for citizenship because he or she is born of the soil and of the blood. (Born on US soil of two American citizens).
Ted Cruz was neither born of the soil (born in Canada) or of the blood (his father was not a US citizen at the time of Ted's birth).
-
What the heck does birtherism have to do with the topic at hand? We've had this argument multiple times before here, and it never gets us anywhere. No one is going to budge.
-
What the heck does birtherism have to do with the topic at hand? We've had this argument multiple times before here, and it never gets us anywhere. No one is going to budge.
The constitution SHOULD matter and the fact that it no longer does is why we find ourselves in the mess we currently do!
-
Actually @Sled Dog the laws in effect at the time of Cruz's birth make him a naturalized citizen. No natural born American requires a law for citizenship because he or she is born of the soil and of the blood. (Born on US soil of two American citizens).
Ted Cruz was neither born of the soil (born in Canada) or of the blood (his father was not a US citizen at the time of Ted's birth).
Cruz was a US citizen at birth....that's the definition of "natural born citizen".
That Kenyan fascist was not a natural born citizen because he was not conferred citizenship at birth.
This isn't difficult, you know.
Did you know...maybe you did not...it's difficult for some people to understand these things fully... .but Ted Cruz had a MOTHER as well as a father. And his MOTHER, as a US citizen for more than two years since her 18th birthday, was able to confer US citizenship on her child, Teddy. Under the same 1952 law that said that Obama's mother, some guy named Stanley, could not, because this weirdly named person was not a citizen for two years since her 18th birthday when she gave birth to the Hussein ...when she was 19...which is why the Marxist from Kenya was not born a US citizen.
Being born a citizen is what the term "natural born citizen" means, of course.
Too bad for your argument that Cruz had both an egg donor as well as a sperm donor in his heritage, isn't it?
-
What the heck does birtherism have to do with the topic at hand? We've had this argument multiple times before here, and it never gets us anywhere. No one is going to budge.
I think they brought the matter up because they can't accept the fact that the thread is about President Trump using his second term to start up his own social media company to end the vile censorship imposed upon him by the Rodents and Principled Conservatives.
I'm not sure why the losers dragged Cruz into it, either.
-
Cruz was a US citizen at birth....that's the definition of "natural born citizen".
No, not for the purposes of holding the office of President of the United States @Sled Dog NBC for POTUS is a person born on the soil (not Cruz) and born of two folks who were American citizens at the time of his birth (not Cruz).
A law passed by Congress made Cruz a naturalized citizen. I, as one born in the United States to two citizens at the time of my birth, cannot have my citizenship revoked because I am of both the soil and the blood. Cruz's citizenship is dependent upon the Congress not repealing the law that granted him naturalized citizenship.
We do not ever want the citizenship of our POTUS dependent upon the good tidings of Congress.
-
The great NeverTrumper lie was;Trump had to be defeated because of his spending, spending that was needed to repair a great deal of the damage Obama had done. For all the bitching about the spending Trump did, the same bitchers are near silent on the Trillions Obama spent and the Trillions Biden won't quit spending. The phoniness is clear enough for even a child to see, how many deep Staters are their behind and working as facade Conservatives? The I.Q. test is not being passed!
-
I feel bad for those Parler guys. They worked their ass off to create a great platform. It was taking off like gang busters after the pre and post-election censorship from Twatter, the Amazon, Apple, and Google screwed them. Now they are back, without the momentum, and Trump, in typical selfish fashion, announces his own platform.
Sends a great message to Rumble and other folks looking to build a parallel, conservative-friendly, economy: don't bother.
I don't. John Matze Jr. supports the NWO. It is just a question of time before it goes downhill, rather like Murdoch and Fox News.
-
The great NeverTrumper lie was;Trump had to be defeated because of his spending, spending that was needed to repair a great deal of the damage Obama had done. For all the bitching about the spending Trump did, the same bitchers are near silent on the Trillions Obama spent and the Trillions Biden won't quit spending. The phoniness is clear enough for even a child to see, how many deep Staters are their behind and working as facade Conservatives? The I.Q. test is not being passed!
That's not true and you know it.
-
The Tea Party remnants went to Trump.
Everyone in our TEA group did. Every TEA group I know of did. :patriot:
-
Right... Populism can always take the field. It just can't govern.
You mean like conservatism can? :laugh:
-
I feel bad for those Parler guys. They worked their ass off to create a great platform. It was taking off like gang busters after the pre and post-election censorship from Twatter, the Amazon, Apple, and Google screwed them. Now they are back, without the momentum, and Trump, in typical selfish fashion, announces his own platform.
President Trump is taking the time and putting in the effort to create a platform no can touch. I'm sure his driving force is to make sure his MAGA message and candidates are not thrown off social meeting leading up to the 2022 elections.
You call this "selfish", others call it smart @BassWrangler
-
Everyone in our TEA group did. Every TEA group I know of did. :patriot:
:thumbsup:
-
Please try to stay in the same county as the thread topic.
-
President Trump is taking the time and putting in the effort to create a platform no can touch. I'm sure his driving force is to make sure his MAGA message and candidates are not thrown off social meeting leading up to the 2022 elections.
Right, because president Trump knows soooooo much about creating web applications. It's his career spent as a real estate developer that gives him this special insight, don't you know :boring:
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ddde1b887f6992c2aef410f85253d171ca9d7f6dea724ade63ab49ae781168c1.jpg)
-
The "Trump Train" was supposed to sweep all before it because of Trump's visionary omnicompetence and because "he's not a politician." But when he failed to bend Congress to his will first-class ticket holders on the train told us he couldn't be blamed because "he's not a politician." First it was an argument that he would succeed, then it was an excuse for failure. All events had to be refracted through the prism of Trump's blamelessness.
The DC establishment definitely had it in for Trump because he threatened their sinecures; actually the Trump movement threatened their sinecures, Trump himself not so much (how much of The Swamp did he simply fire? Damn little). One can argue that had Trump been more effective in tearing down the bureaucracy's fortifications it would have counter-attacked more forcefully. But his administration was sabotaged from the get-go, he was already lied about systematically every night by the MSM, and he was impeached twice on ridiculous false charges; what more could they have done to him that they didn't do? He had much to gain and little to lose by systematically dismissing Executive Agency functionaries who stood in the way of his agenda *and* by vetoing spending bills that continued the bankruptcy of our children past the third generation. And I've read it right here that Trump is the one with the steel spine; steel Twitter thumbs seems more like it. Rather than making decisions and being accountable for them he played to the Social Media gallery.
Had he truly been the bulletproof master of flying, invisible, 9-dimensional stealth jedi chess that we were told about, he could have found the sweet spot of building an alliance larger than his own narcissism and using that alliance to drain the swamp. But he simply was not that bulletproof master. That failure doesn't make him a bad person, it just means that his sycophants raised expectations that were impossible to fulfill, just as Obama's sycophants had done eight years earlier.
What distinguishes Reagan from Trump is that Reagan persuaded the entire country to come along with him, to the tune of a 49 state re-election landslide, and he bequeathed a strong enough legacy that his successor could also be elected. There is no successor to Trump because there is nothing to which anyone can succeed; the "Trump Train" derailed and lies strewn in wreckage because the engineer couldn't keep it on the tracks. A lot of that wreckage I hope can be salvaged in the future, but right now, it's just wreckage.
I don't blame the engineer for being who he is, and I voted to keep him in place. I do blame the people who continue telling us the engineer is more than who he is and that we should continue following him.
Yes, excellent summation. Trump didn't understand (still doesn't) the value of optics. He simply looked and sounded bad to many people who ignored the good and focused on the bad.
For every voter he attracted by attacking ankle-biters, he probably lost two who thought it unpresidential for the POTUS to squabble with nitwits.
Plus, he couldn't explain in eloquent terms why what he was doing was good for the country. He was constantly stepping on his member. That plus disastrous public performances like with Biden in the first debate didn't help.
-
The "Trump Train" was supposed to sweep all before it because of Trump's visionary omnicompetence and because "he's not a politician." But when he failed to bend Congress to his will first-class ticket holders on the train told us he couldn't be blamed because "he's not a politician." First it was an argument that he would succeed, then it was an excuse for failure. All events had to be refracted through the prism of Trump's blamelessness.
The DC establishment definitely had it in for Trump because he threatened their sinecures; actually the Trump movement threatened their sinecures, Trump himself not so much (how much of The Swamp did he simply fire? Damn little). One can argue that had Trump been more effective in tearing down the bureaucracy's fortifications it would have counter-attacked more forcefully. But his administration was sabotaged from the get-go, he was already lied about systematically every night by the MSM, and he was impeached twice on ridiculous false charges; what more could they have done to him that they didn't do? He had much to gain and little to lose by systematically dismissing Executive Agency functionaries who stood in the way of his agenda *and* by vetoing spending bills that continued the bankruptcy of our children past the third generation. And I've read it right here that Trump is the one with the steel spine; steel Twitter thumbs seems more like it. Rather than making decisions and being accountable for them he played to the Social Media gallery.
Had he truly been the bulletproof master of flying, invisible, 9-dimensional stealth jedi chess that we were told about, he could have found the sweet spot of building an alliance larger than his own narcissism and using that alliance to drain the swamp. But he simply was not that bulletproof master. That failure doesn't make him a bad person, it just means that his sycophants raised expectations that were impossible to fulfill, just as Obama's sycophants had done eight years earlier.
What distinguishes Reagan from Trump is that Reagan persuaded the entire country to come along with him, to the tune of a 49 state re-election landslide, and he bequeathed a strong enough legacy that his successor could also be elected. There is no successor to Trump because there is nothing to which anyone can succeed; the "Trump Train" derailed and lies strewn in wreckage because the engineer couldn't keep it on the tracks. A lot of that wreckage I hope can be salvaged in the future, but right now, it's just wreckage.
I don't blame the engineer for being who he is, and I voted to keep him in place. I do blame the people who continue telling us the engineer is more than who he is and that we should continue following him.
@HoustonSam
This is the best summation of the Trump administration that I've ever read. I could not agree more.
-
You mean like conservatism can? :laugh:
YES that is exactly what I mean. Conservatism works, every time it's tried.
-
Right, because president Trump knows soooooo much about creating web applications. It's his career spent as a real estate developer that gives him this special insight, don't you know :boring:
:silly: :beer:
-
Everyone in our TEA group did. Every TEA group I know of did. :patriot:
Mine most certainly did NOT, and I am at a regional level. The sense of Taxed Enough Already is to lower the size and scope of government. That is what TEA is FOR. And that most certainly has NOT happened through Tumpy.
-
The great NeverTrumper lie was;Trump had to be defeated because of his spending, spending that was needed to repair a great deal of the damage Obama had done.
TWENTY FRIGGIN TRILLION DOLLARS.
For all the bitching about the spending Trump did, the same bitchers are near silent on the Trillions Obama spent and the Trillions Biden won't quit spending. The phoniness is clear enough for even a child to see, how many deep Staters are their behind and working as facade Conservatives? The I.Q. test is not being passed!
That's the bullshit, right there. I screamed at BOOSH, AND OBummer, AND Tumpy, so don't give me that.
The difference is, there are no Democrats over in here trying to justify their spending as 'the most conservative evah'. OF COURSE BOOSH and Tumpy are gonna get the business. They're on the side that is supposed to be making government smaller and more efficient. They're on the side that is supposed to be business inclined and capable toward balancing the damn books.
What is CLEAR is that I will not pass on big government spending and growing the size and power of government and call that Conservative. Because it ain't.
-
That's not true and you know it.
Agreed.
The Never Trumpers can't think that clearly, they just betray America because they have feelings or something.
-
YES that is exactly what I mean. Conservatism works, every time it's tried.
So long as the Americans keep the Principles out of it.
-
So long as the Americans keep the Principles out of it.
Then it is not Conservatism. And it will not work at all. As should be self-evident by now.
-
Then it is not Conservatism. And it will not work at all. As should be self-evident by now.
You're absolutely right that there's no Principles in conservatism. It's the Principled Conservatives who make up the corps of rotten traitor RINOs that kept the President from getting the proper bills passed before the Rodents stole the House in 2018. It's the Principled Conservatives who have no principles.
Anyone claiming to oppose Trump on Principles don't have any principles at all. They're just spoiled children who don't want to what is needed to make America succeed. In other words, the Principled Conservatives, those pitiful whiners who don't like his Mean Tweets, his relentless attacks on America's enemies in the media, in the Rodent Party, and among the Principled Conservatives themselves, aren't conservatives.
Which is why I capitalized Principles. American's don't need Principles. Their principle is to win and defend the Constitution and the feelings of the enemy about the matter be damned.
Principles of American conservatism:
1) Don't kill babies.
2) Don't kill adults unless they really deserve it, and only then after the proper trial as required by the Constitution.
3) Don't give Rodents a fair shake, just shake them like a husky dog capturing a sleeping cat. Until the crap flies and the rat dies.
4) Grow up and realize that it takes time to reverse what you Rodents have done to destroy the country since 1860.
5) If having Principles means letting Zuckerberg and Fakebook censor political speech, then find a higher principle than property rights, like First Amendment rights. Grow up, in other words. Again.
6) I know what the words "shall not" and "infringed" mean. How is the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Six, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendments applied to the states universally, but not the Second and Thirteenth?
7) America IS exceptional, and conservatives put America first before all other nations and peoples of the world.
8) Cells have borders to keep the viruses out. So do nations.
9) The Founding Fathers started a rebellion over a minor tax. So the Rodents call them racist to avoid the discussions about what America is really founded on.
10) Boys have XY chromosomes, girls have XX, and that's that. Nothing complicated here. Since boys aren't girls, they should be competing against girls in sports.
11) Whatever happened to the slogan RINO Dole sported at his Presidential campaign rallies: "Its Your Money, Not Theirs"? Principled Conservatives didn't like it. Our money is supposed to be their money.
12) What's wrong with a President telling people that CNN and MSLSD and the WayPoo and NY Slimes and the rest are lying rags, when they are in fact lying used menstrual rags?
This is conservatism at the grass roots. I can see how the chardonnay sippers can be offended by our uppitiness. Too bad.
-
You're absolutely right that there's no Principles in conservatism. It's the Principled Conservatives who make up the corps of rotten traitor RINOs that kept the President from getting the proper bills passed before the Rodents stole the House in 2018. It's the Principled Conservatives who have no principles.
Anyone claiming to oppose Trump on Principles don't have any principles at all. They're just spoiled children who don't want to what is needed to make America succeed. In other words, the Principled Conservatives, those pitiful whiners who don't like his Mean Tweets, his relentless attacks on America's enemies in the media, in the Rodent Party, and among the Principled Conservatives themselves, aren't conservatives.
Which is why I capitalized Principles. American's don't need Principles. Their principle is to win and defend the Constitution and the feelings of the enemy about the matter be damned.
You really don't understand a damn thing you are saying.
-
You really don't understand a damn thing you are saying.
Just because YOU don't understand what I say does not imply that I do not understand what I say.
It indicates that you lack comprehension.
My style is not intended to convey surface ideas. My style is provocative and most certainly annoying to those feeling themselves on the wrong side of the bullseye.
So I make a distinction between a conservative with principles for America and a Principled Conservative out to screw America.
-
Just because YOU don't understand what I say does not imply that I do not understand what I say.
It indicates that you lack comprehension.
My style is not intended to convey surface ideas. My style is provocative and most certainly annoying to those feeling themselves on the wrong side of the bullseye.
So I make a distinction between a conservative with principles for America and a Principled Conservative out to screw America.
I get it. You make shit up.
I comprehend perfectly what Principled Conservatism is.
Name them. Because there is but a handful of Goldwater/Reagan Conservatives
-
Don't give up on his poor lost soul @roamer_1 at this rate you will have him thoroughly convinced by 2023 as to the error of his ways. Youth is wasted on the young. :beer:
-
Don't give up on his poor lost soul @roamer_1 at this rate you will have him thoroughly convinced by 2023 as to the error of his ways. Youth is wasted on the young. :beer:
@corbe
turns out, so is wisdom. :shrug: :whistle:
-
Just because YOU don't understand what I say does not imply that I do not understand what I say.
It indicates that you lack comprehension.
My style is not intended to convey surface ideas. My style is provocative and most certainly annoying to those feeling themselves on the wrong side of the bullseye.
So I make a distinction between a conservative with principles for America and a Principled Conservative out to screw America.
A friend pointed out to me here once that I was being needlessly provocative. I had to stop and think about it, and I realized he was correct. I wanted to be thought-provoking, but I wasn't; I was provocative, and needlessly. I wasn't making people think, I was putting people on the defensive. I'm sure I still do that, but I try to be more self-aware and more balanced in what I say.
So take this as friendly input @Sled Dog that your style isn't "provocative" in a useful way, it's "provocative" in a way that will prevent you from gaining influence. I've never had the opportunity to have a drink with my friend @roamer_1, but I suspect he would join me in a shot of bourbon or scotch rather than a glass of chardonnay. You don't do yourself any favors by suggesting that his insistence on complete Conservatism - political, fiscal, federal, social, moral, and spiritual - is somehow less robust or less reliable or less American than your more focused version of it.
Having said that, I think you've got some excellent rules-of-thumb listed for the *political* dimension of Conservatism in your list slightly upthread; I can't see anything there I disagree with, and I sorely wish the R establishment would read your list and take it to heart. But your list only goes so far.
I know I'm kind of pedantic about it, but I'd say that "Conservative principles" are ideas, some political and some not, that we consider self-evident - don't spend more than you make; respect the wisdom of the people who came before us even if we don't understand it until we're much older; acknowledge that Man is not the supreme intelligence or moral arbiter in the universe; acknowledge emotion but act on thought; realize that individual convenience and pleasure are not supreme; recognize that a community must have shared moral values, and that they descend from the spiritual, or else it isn't a community; understand that Man is flawed so his authority must be severely limited. I'm sure there are others but I offer these just as examples. These principles aren't merely political, and without them the merely political is doomed to fail, and to fail in every way - politically, fiscally, socially, and in terms of security.
There certainly are people who declined to support Trump and cited principle as their reason. I was one of those people in 2016, I wasn't in 2020. But in neither year was I an ally of the Ds or someone who wanted less than the best for the people of this country, I just made a different calculation about what was achievable, what was the down-side risk, and what was the significance of my individual vote. My calculation was different, but my principles weren't, and I'll stand next to roamer_1 every day and twice on Sunday arguing that if we don't have principles we don't have anything.
And at some level I suspect you actually agree.
-
I've never had the opportunity to have a drink with my friend @roamer_1, but I suspect he would join me in a shot of bourbon or scotch rather than a glass of chardonnay.
Ain't one for putting on airs @HoustonSam ... As likker goes, a swig out of a stone jug is good enough for me. A bourbon or a whiskey if you've got the money... Money not well spent on me. A scotch, if it's good scotch, and you make me do it... I have never had a chardonnay in my life (I take it that's a wine), unless I hit on it by mistake home-made :shrug: . My taste goes more to sweet tea and PBRs.
[...]
My calculation was different, but my principles weren't, and I'll stand next to roamer_1 every day and twice on Sunday arguing that if we don't have principles we don't have anything.
And at some level I suspect you actually agree.
As always HoustonSam, a fantastic post that I will agree with. And yeah, I will stand by you every time. :beer:
-
NeverTrumpers know that all that mattered is Trump be defeated, and that making certain that Biden won didn't matter. They insist that Biden winning the election didn't matter, because they weren't for Biden, only against Trump. From my era, this is clearly fishing for fools, morons,idiots who will believe the ludicrous. Defeat him, get the other guy elected, but don't hold me accountable for how it turns out. Like i said, fishing for fools........etc
-
I get it. You make shit up.
I comprehend perfectly what Principled Conservatism is.
Name them. Because there is but a handful of Goldwater/Reagan Conservatives
Yes. Now we both know what Principled Conservatism is.
It's PC.
That's no coincidence. Either form of PC works towards the same goal, the enslavement of the American people by means foul and disgusting, through lies and fake outrage.
And naturally, PC people are opposed to my particular brand of creativity. They don't have sense of humor and are afraid that metaphor is too revealing of their inner realities.
-
NeverTrumpers know that all that mattered is Trump be defeated, and that making certain that Biden won didn't matter. They insist that Biden winning the election didn't matter, because they weren't for Biden, only against Trump. From my era, this is clearly fishing for fools, morons,idiots who will believe the ludicrous. Defeat him, get the other guy elected, but don't hold me accountable for how it turns out. Like i said, fishing for fools........etc
It DOESN'T MATTER - You were spending us into oblivion ANYWAY.
Don't think it's an accomplishment making the trains run on time. YOUR big government is exactly as repellent to me as Buydems.
A pox on ALL your houses.
-
Yes. Now we both know what Principled Conservatism is.
It's PC.
That's no coincidence. Either form of PC works towards the same goal, the enslavement of the American people by means foul and disgusting, through lies and fake outrage.
And naturally, PC people are opposed to my particular brand of creativity. They don't have sense of humor and are afraid that metaphor is too revealing of their inner realities.
How utterly absurd.
I am easily the single most UN-PC person on this board. I am also very likely among the very most libertarian, and nearly undoubtedly the most free.
And I assure you, my disgust and outrage are by no means fake. And they are pointed at yourn every bit as much much as they are pointed toward the democrats.
-
A friend pointed out to me here once that I was being needlessly provocative. I had to stop and think about it, and I realized he was correct. I wanted to be thought-provoking, but I wasn't; I was provocative, and needlessly. I wasn't making people think, I was putting people on the defensive. I'm sure I still do that, but I try to be more self-aware and more balanced in what I say.
That's nice.
I learned a long time ago that people cannot be made to think. Thinking is either something they are capable of, and thus do, or incapable of, and do not.
It's a Yoda thing.
Nor is my style unnecessarily provocative. It's who I am. You don't want me to be dishonest, do you?
So take this as friendly input @Sled Dog that your style isn't "provocative" in a useful way, it's "provocative" in a way that will prevent you from gaining influence. I've never had the opportunity to have a drink with my friend @roamer_1, but I suspect he would join me in a shot of bourbon or scotch rather than a glass of chardonnay. You don't do yourself any favors by suggesting that his insistence on complete Conservatism - political, fiscal, federal, social, moral, and spiritual - is somehow less robust or less reliable or less American than your more focused version of it.
When I want influence I break out the Danish Butter Cookies and teach my husky new tricks.
I've no desire to teach Rodents anything but the scorn their stupidity has earned them.
Having said that, I think you've got some excellent rules-of-thumb listed for the *political* dimension of Conservatism in your list slightly upthread; I can't see anything there I disagree with, and I sorely wish the R establishment would read your list and take it to heart. But your list only goes so far.
Possibly because I've spent the last sixty years learning them and don't want to spend the next sixty listing them.
I know I'm kind of pedantic about it, but I'd say that "Conservative principles" are ideas, some political and some not, that we consider self-evident - don't spend more than you make; respect the wisdom of the people who came before us even if we don't understand it until we're much older; acknowledge that Man is not the supreme intelligence or moral arbiter in the universe; acknowledge emotion but act on thought; realize that individual convenience and pleasure are not supreme; recognize that a community must have shared moral values, and that they descend from the spiritual, or else it isn't a community; understand that Man is flawed so his authority must be severely limited. I'm sure there are others but I offer these just as examples. These principles aren't merely political, and without them the merely political is doomed to fail, and to fail in every way - politically, fiscally, socially, and in terms of security.
There are conservatives with principles seeking to promote true American culture and Principled Conservatives pretending a mid-life identity crisis because the real American elected a real American as president and the PC crowd hates real America.
There certainly are people who declined to support Trump and cited principle as their reason.
Because they're full of crap.
I was one of those people in 2016, I wasn't in 2020. But in neither year was I an ally of the Ds or someone who wanted less than the best for the people of this country, I just made a different calculation about what was achievable, what was the down-side risk, and what was the significance of my individual vote. My calculation was different, but my principles weren't, and I'll stand next to roamer_1 every day and twice on Sunday arguing that if we don't have principles we don't have anything.
That's you. It's perfectly obvious that the real PC crowd doesn't like Trump because they ARE allied with the Rodents.
Their posts here confirm this.
What are the signs of the Devoted Rodent?
Proclaiming to have some bs "principle" and every time the alleged principle is shredded, "circling back" to insist there's actually "no evidence". Sound like someone you might be familiar with?
I've been on internet boards for a quarter century and recognize the patterns of the Rodent PC troll.
And at some level I suspect you actually agree.
Sure. Some people were opposed to Trump in the beginning. I didn't believe he was a serious candidate and I was favorable to Cruz in 2015. My opinions changed through 2016 and then President Trump gave one of the finest inaugural addresses I ever heard or read. And he lived up to my expectations as well as any human could.
But after four years of Trump and there are still people pretending to be conservatives and pretending to have "principles" in opposition? They're merely willfully aiding the betrayal of the United States to enemies both foreign in thought and residing here.
[/quote]
-
How utterly absurd.
I am easily the single most UN-PC person on this board. I am also very likely among the very most libertarian, and nearly undoubtedly the most free.
And I assure you, my disgust and outrage are by no means fake. And they are pointed at yourn every bit as much much as they are pointed toward the democrats.
Oh, don't worry.
PC is PC.
Principled Conservatism is Political Correctness for RINOs.
It's written in the cement in front of Mann's Chinese Theatre, now. Check it out when you come to LA.
-
Oh, don't worry.
PC is PC.
Principled Conservatism is Political Correctness for RINOs.
It's written in the cement in front of Mann's Chinese Theatre, now. Check it out when you come to LA.
I am not an "R" of ANY sort. Having eschewed that feckless party in 07, and if Tumpy and his movement is the best you can do, then I most assuredly won't be back. Big government Republicans ain't a damn bit different than big government Democrats, ad y'all love spending other people's money.
And there ain't a single chance in hell I will ever be in a sh*thole like LA.
-
"NeverTrumpers brought the horror of Biden upon us,"
Trump brought the horror of Biden upon us.
Uh,no. Dominion voting machines brought the horror of Biden upon us.
-
Uh,no. Dominion voting machines brought the horror of Biden upon us.
No, Republicans did, because they let it happen.
Liberalism wins because it has no opposition.
-
No, Republicans did, because they let it happen.
Liberalism wins because it has no opposition.
I agree, though I no longer think of them as "Republicans." They are NWO globalist traitors and in on the take, aligned with Democratic grifting.
Shameful that they refused support the President when the rubber met the road. Rona stuck her head up on Twitter, under the guise of the stolen election to push for GOP funding. I asked her where she was during the endless attacks on Trump and the theft of the election while it was ongoing. ((crickets)) I was far from the only one.
-
I agree, though I no longer think of them as "Republicans." They are NWO globalist traitors and in on the take, aligned with Democratic grifting.
Shameful that they refused support the President when the rubber met the road. Rona stuck her head up on Twitter, under the guise of the stolen election to push for GOP funding. I asked her where she was during the endless attacks on Trump and the theft of the election while it was ongoing. ((crickets)) I was far from the only one.
Whatever... Seen it all before, and in a couple years y'all will vote em all right back in there. Because Democrats.
And will remain ever feckless because y'all WILL NOT stand upon what you are there to fight for - Conservatism... PRINCIPLED Conservatism at that.
Always an excuse.
And the liberals win... Because they have no opposition.