The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Night Hides Not on December 02, 2016, 02:17:26 pm
-
Full title: Hillary Clinton blew the most winnable election in modern American history. And it's her own fault.
http://theweek.com/articles/664828/hillary-clinton-blew-most-winnable-election-modern-american-history-fault (http://theweek.com/articles/664828/hillary-clinton-blew-most-winnable-election-modern-american-history-fault)
Opening paragraph:
It's been nearly a month since Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election to an opponent that every knowledgeable political operative, strategist, and analyst considered the weakest major party candidate in modern American history. The time has come for Democrats to start taking responsibility for the loss.
I scanned through the article, it wasn't bad. I'm not familiar with the publication, but it appears to be left of center.
-
Alternate reality. She blew the only chance she had to win: against Trump. She would have had a guaranteed loss against almost any of the other GOP primary participants.
-
She was the slightly more unpopular of the two most unpopular candidates in modern history.
-
Alternate reality. She blew the only chance she had to win: against Trump. She would have had a guaranteed loss against almost any of the other GOP primary participants.
You are delusional, and as other posters have said - something just not right with you.
-
And if she blew this, how would she do running the country?
-
actually Hillary would have lost to any of the Republicans, Trump was her best bet.
-
I would say that most GOP candidates would have beat her, with the exceptions being the farther left they went, the less likely it would be that they would win.
After all, what would be the major differences?
Her own behavior as Secretary of State did her in, with the e-mails, and such.
Why democrats do not understand this is beyond me.
-
I would say that most GOP candidates would have beat her, with the exceptions being the farther left they went, the less likely it would be that they would win.
After all, what would be the major differences?
Her own behavior as Secretary of State did her in, with the e-mails, and such.
Why democrats do not understand this is beyond me.
There are too many veterans, not too mention current government employees, that are intimately familiar with the procedures to safely handle classified information. That Hillary was not held accountable for her misdeeds was the main contributor to her unlikable and untrustworthy numbers.
No one besides Trump was seen in the same light. She finished at least 7 million votes shy of what Obama received...there's your difference.
-
Alternate reality. She blew the only chance she had to win: against Trump. She would have had a guaranteed loss against almost any of the other GOP primary participants.
Give it up already. Losing over and over again during a primary season does not translate into winning a general election. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.
-
Alternate reality.
Aren't you the won arguing an "alternate reality?" What would have happened if someone other than Trump had won the nomination?
The only reality we actually have is the one in which Trump won both the nomination and the election. He wasn't my guy in the primaries, but I'm glad as hell me managed to beat her.
-
There are too many veterans, not too mention current government employees, that are intimately familiar with the procedures to safely handle classified information. That Hillary was not held accountable for her misdeeds was the main contributor to her unlikable and untrustworthy numbers.
I think that's true, but Trump also did go after her much more boldly than some other might have done. "Crooked Hillary" didn't sound all that good to me, but it did have the effect of reinforcing her biggest weakness. I dunno if someone like Jeb would have pushed that nearly as hard -- he might even have made excuses for/minimized her misconduct in debates.
-
Alternate reality. She blew the only chance she had to win: against Trump. She would have had a guaranteed loss against almost any of the other GOP primary participants.
I think that's the point of the article, that the GOP handed the Democrats a very easy opportunity to win with the selection of Trump as the GOP presidential candidate...
...and that Hillary blew it, despite all that.
-
Alternate reality. She blew the only chance she had to win: against Trump. She would have had a guaranteed loss against almost any of the other GOP primary participants.
Absolutely. Against Trump it was a dog fight featuring two dogs.
Against any other Republican candidate, it would have been a cake walk.
Against Ted Cruz, it would have been a blowout of epic proportions.
-
You are delusional, and as other posters have said - something just not right with you.
Well since the polls were so accurate. I'm sure the ones that said everyone else would lose were right on. :whistle:
-
Well either Trump or Hillary were going to blow the most winnable election in modern American History.. :shrug:
-
Well either Trump or Hillary were going to blow the most winnable election in modern American History.. :shrug:
:amen:
-
Well either Trump or Hillary were going to blow the most winnable election in modern American History.. :shrug:
As @EasyAce has said, most elections are between snake oil salesmen. In this one, they offered snakes.
One of the snakes had to win.
It just happened to be Trump.
-
You are delusional, and as other posters have said - something just not right with you.
maybe BR could have a BRief-a thon to raise money to get him professional help?
-
Alternate reality. She blew the only chance she had to win: against Trump. She would have had a guaranteed loss against almost any of the other GOP primary participants.
Absolutely. This election was in the palm of our hands with any decent candidate.
The "Republican" primary voters happened to choose the only completely indecent candidate running.
It's only through horrible campaigning and a horrible candidate on the "D" side that the (pseudo) "R" candidate won.
-
maybe BR could have a BRief-a thon to raise money to get him professional help?
You mean like the vile TOS does (where you like the people who post there and there is no sanity?)??
@Oceander is sane and extremely rational. TOS posters are not.
-
You are delusional, and as other posters have said - something just not right with you.
Nice of you to question the sanity of a person who disagrees with you politically, alice.
Is that all you do now?
-
maybe BR could have a BRief-a thon to raise money to get him professional help?
There's several other NeverTrumps that could use it too - might get a group rate?
-
There's several other NeverTrumps that could use it too - might get a group rate?
Again............. is smearing the intellect and health of those who disagree with you politically what we can expect from you now that you have emerged from your hiding place?
Or will you use your own intellect and post thoughts rather than stupid smears?
-
There's several other NeverTrumps that could use it too - might get a group rate?
Valid point....group rates. Maybe they can sell some #nevertrump tombstones to help pay.
-
Alternate reality. She blew the only chance she had to win: against Trump. She would have had a guaranteed loss against almost any of the other GOP primary participants.
She was losing in polling against "Generic Republican" since the beginning. Trump is a generic Republican. I do not think there was any opportunity for her to win under any circumstances.
People have, will and will always hate her.
-
There's several other NeverTrumps that could use it too - might get a group rate?
Why are you guys so into groups and rallies?
-
actually Hillary would have lost to any of the Republicans, Trump was her best bet.
Nope..the other candidates were all globalist, establishment types.. Hillary would have crushed them.
@geronl
-
Nope..the other candidates were all globalist, establishment types.. Hillary would have crushed them.
@geronl
You have no idea what you are talking about. Hitlary was losing to every single GOP candidate and that includes Jim Gilmore. No one gave a shit about globalism. They heated Hitlary. If the Rats would have run Sanders, Trump would have lost and lost big. Just look at the enthusiasm he gave their party.
-
Oh lookie! @alicewonders @Right_in_Virginia
The harpie squad is back! I'd say we missed you, but if that were true we'd have followed you to TOS, where harpies such as yourselves are welcome.
-
You have no idea what you are talking about. Hitlary was losing to every single GOP candidate and that includes Jim Gilmore. No one gave a shit about globalism. They heated Hitlary. If the Rats would have run Sanders, Trump would have lost and lost big. Just look at the enthusiasm he gave their party.
I do so enjoy the claims of everybody else being globalist scum as Trump installs Goldman Sachs at the top levels of our fiscal structure.
-
Nope..the other candidates were all globalist, establishment types.. Hillary would have crushed them.
@geronl
/snicker
You have no clue what those candidates stood for, nor what those words mean. You're like one of Pavlov's dogs, salivating on command at the ring of a bell, or in this case, opaque code words.
-
One thing I will say in Trump's favor in this is... can we really trust polls anymore?
-
Valid point....group rates. Maybe they can sell some #nevertrump tombstones to help pay.
If you have an honest moment, can you tell me, after your man-child hero WON the election, why you are still so BITTER??
-
I just want to point out that @alicewonders and @flowers were both good people before they became angry, bitter trumpers.
I miss the people they used to be. I LIKED those people. They could think. They could carry on conversations. They had reasonable positions on issues. They could disagree without hating you.
No more.
Sad....... ****sheep****
-
One thing I will say in Trump's favor in this is... can we really trust polls anymore?
Actually, what it goes to show is that polls that don't factor in the Electoral College cannot be fully trusted. The fact of the matter is, Clinton won the popular vote, she just didn't have those votes distributed sufficiently in the necessary states.
And before the harpies and Trump worshippers come flaming - they will anyways - I think the Electoral College was a genuinely smart invention of the Founders and would not do away with it, although I do think it should be awarded proportionately and not winner take all.
-
If you have an honest moment, can you tell me, after your man-child hero WON the election, why you are still so BITTER??
They're not bitter, they're hate-filled, like radical islamists who cannot stand the fact that there are still people who refuse to worship the Great Orange God.
-
I just want to point out that @alicewonders and @flowers were both good people before they became angry, bitter trumpers.
I miss the people they used to be. I LIKED those people. They could think. They could carry on conversations. They had reasonable positions on issues. They could disagree without hating you.
No more.
Sad....... ****sheep****
LOl it's how you treat people...calling posters "boy" and other derogatory terms. You rub people the wrong way if you don't agree with them.
@musiclady
@alicewonders
-
/snicker
You have no clue what those candidates stood for, nor what those words mean. You're like one of Pavlov's dogs, salivating on command at the ring of a bell, or in this case, opaque code words.
Trump is America First and that is the reason why he won. The American people are tired of being the loser on trade deals. Do you really think Kasich or Jeb or Rubio or Christie would have saved Carrier jobs? Do you really think they would have closed the border?
The Republicans who ran were all globalist free trade types...the types who sell out the US workers, the ones who require 2500 page trade deals where the uS always gets the shit deal..
Give Trump a chance..
@Oceander
@Frank Cannon
-
I do so enjoy the claims of everybody else being globalist scum as Trump installs Goldman Sachs at the top levels of our fiscal structure.
You're just going to love Steve Mnuchin...lmao. Goldman Sachs, IndyMac, hedge funder, there's a trifecta for you.
I really don't want to hear Mr. Mnuchin regale himself as a market capitalist. The investors who agreed to buy IndyMac from the government/FDIC had at least 90% of their projected losses covered by the FDIC. It was the best that could have been done, under the circumstances.
It was like Warren Buffett investing $5 billion in Goldman Sachs, after his discussions with the NY Fed President, one Timothy Geithner.
Wall Street danced on the ruins of Main Street, and all I can say is "BOHICA!" We'll get a few crumbs, and maybe a virtual wall on our Southern Border. Make no mistake about it, though: Wall Street bankers and assorted crony capitalists are going to make a killing.
-
I just want to point out that @alicewonders and @flowers were both good people before they became angry, bitter trumpers.
I miss the people they used to be. I LIKED those people. They could think. They could carry on conversations. They had reasonable positions on issues. They could disagree without hating you.
No more.
Sad....... ****sheep****
I remember the good old days of North Texas Freeper gatherings, and "Sore Loserman" bumper stickers. 8888crybaby
-
Just wondering why DT is determined to stop the recount. He won a couple of those battleground states by only a few thousand votes. Something wrong here. VERY wrong.
-
Trump is America First and that is the reason why he won. The American people are tired of being the loser on trade deals. Do you really think Kasich or Jeb or Rubio or Christie would have saved Carrier jobs? Do you really think they would have closed the border?
The Republicans who ran were all globalist free trade types...the types who sell out the US workers, the ones who require 2500 page trade deals where the uS always gets the shit deal..
Give Trump a chance..
@Oceander
@Frank Cannon
I've been giving Trump a chance, but I won't stay silent when obvious inconsistencies are raised. I understand there's a difference between campaigning and governing, but to excoriate Ted Cruz as a Goldman Sachs puppet when Trump's loading his cabinet with GS alumni?
-
She didn't seem to be in the best of health.
She really didn't hold many campaign rallies, it was a bit half-----.
-
Nope..the other candidates were all globalist, establishment types.. Hillary would have crushed them.
@geronl
...and Trump hires "Globalist,establishment types" from Goldman and Sachs, named Bannon and Mnuchin.
Now wants Mnuchin for Treasury Secretary and Bannon as an advisor.
Nope, No "Globalist, establishment types", here!
:whistle:
-
I remember the good old days of North Texas Freeper gatherings, and "Sore Loserman" bumper stickers. 8888crybaby
Yeah............... only algor lackeys were mad because he LOST. Trump lackeys are angry and he WON.
There is no sense to their anger. They're almost identical to Obama lovers who still hate everyone who voted against him.
-
They're not bitter, they're hate-filled, like radical islamists who cannot stand the fact that there are still people who refuse to worship the Great Orange God.
Not a parallel I'd use, but to me the Obama parallel is striking. They don't support ideals or principles, but a very flawed human being.
Are they going to hate us forever because we disagree with their political idol? Because we can't in good conscience worship Trump??
What continues to occur to me is that hatred only hurts the person who hates. They are going to destroy themselves from the inside out because they can't let go.
-
If you have an honest moment, can you tell me, after your man-child hero WON the election, why you are still so BITTER??
Must be the Koolaid.
-
Must be the Koolaid.
Never did like that stuff.
Maybe that's why.......
-
She didn't seem to be in the best of health.
She really didn't hold many campaign rallies, it was a bit half-----.
I'll bet if she'd have done more rallies she'd have lost even bigger.
-
@mirraflake PLEASE don't "mention" me. I'm not one bit interested in your taunts and attempts to besmirch all men. I don't know if that's what you did here, but until you straighten up and fly right, I'm going to keep you on Ignore.
Sorry, but the second time you played your dirty little game, you pushed me over the edge.
I will protect decent men like my husband and sons and all the good men on this forum before I'll agree with your lie that all males are perverted.
So if you ever want to back off and apologize for your smear campaign, I'll be good with that.
Until then........ :seeya:
-
Just wondering why DT is determined to stop the recount. He won a couple of those battleground states by only a few thousand votes. Something wrong here. VERY wrong.
It seems to me the recount effort is not to flip a state as much as it is to have a respective state fail certification of its results in time for the vote of Electors. By slow-walking the recount beyond December 19 (the date the Electoral College convenes), entire states can be omitted from the tally. It won't change the outcome but the idiots on the left would be gleeful.
-
Oh lookie! @alicewonders @Right_in_Virginia
The harpie squad is back!
Just doing my part to keep the conversation moving @Oceander It was getting a little stale in here. :smokin:
-
It seems to me the recount effort is not to flip a state as much as it is to have a respective state fail certification of its results in time for the vote of Electors. By slow-walking the recount beyond December 19 (the date the Electoral College convenes), entire states can be omitted from the tally. It won't change the outcome but the idiots on the left would be gleeful.
Hasn't Michigan already certified? What do they hope to accomplish there, I wonder?? :shrug:
-
Hasn't Michigan already certified? What do they hope to accomplish there, I wonder?? :shrug:
A court order would stay the certification, wouldn't it? (**Disclaimer** I am no expert!)
They truly do not care about the disruption things like this could cause our nation.
-
A court order would stay the certification, wouldn't it? (**Disclaimer** I am no expert!)
They truly do not care about the disruption things like this could cause our nation.
Like Trumpsters they want to burn everything down if they cannot get their way.
-
Like Trumpsters they want to burn everything down if they cannot get their way.
Makes me wonder if Trump was in support of the algor recount fiasco in 2000? He was a Dem then, wasn't he? And a good buddy of Clinton......
-
Like Trumpsters they want to burn everything down if they cannot get their way.
More #fakenews from WTF. :laugh:
-
A court order would stay the certification, wouldn't it? (**Disclaimer** I am no expert!)
They truly do not care about the disruption things like this could cause our nation.
Michigan AG Bill Schuette has filed to stop the recount based on the fact that its a waste of taxpayer dollars and Stein can't show grievous injury. Basically he's calling it a nuisance because it won't change the outcome of the election.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/12/02/mich-ag-schuette-moves-halt-presidential-recount/94797612/
-
I just want to point out that @alicewonders and @flowers were both good people before they became angry, bitter trumpers.
I miss the people they used to be. I LIKED those people. They could think. They could carry on conversations. They had reasonable positions on issues. They could disagree without hating you.
No more.
Sad....... ****sheep****
Yes !! I did not know those people before Trump took over their souls but I have known many people over at TOS that I really, really admired who became corrupted and actually became different people when Trump somehow took over their minds.
-
Michigan AG Bill Schuette has filed to stop the recount based on the fact that its a waste of taxpayer dollars and Stein can't show grievous injury. Basically he's calling it a nuisance because it won't change the outcome of the election.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/12/02/mich-ag-schuette-moves-halt-presidential-recount/94797612/
Good! Have you seen the images of the tedious hand counting underway in Dane County, Wisconsin (Madison)? Such a waste - and it will drag out and drag out.
-
Good! Have you seen the images of the tedious hand counting underway in Dane County, Wisconsin (Madison)? Such a waste - and it will drag out and drag out.
It would have been different if Clinton or Trump wanted a recount in Michigan but Stein is a 1 percenter who simply isn't going to change the outcome in her favor. Schuette mentioning a recount hindering Michigan's electoral college vote is interesting. I think he's basically accusing Stein of trying to prevent Michigan's EC votes from being counted.
-
Trump is America First and that is the reason why he won. The American people are tired of being the loser on trade deals. Do you really think Kasich or Jeb or Rubio or Christie would have saved Carrier jobs? Do you really think they would have closed the border?
You are a mindless drone. Pence saved Carrier by using IA taxpayers money to bride them to stay. It is costing the taxpayers $700 a job "saved" and still Carrier is moving jobs to Mexico. Donny did nothing because he has no power to do anything.
As for the border, wake me up when this wall is built.
-
Trump is America First and that is the reason why he won. The American people are tired of being the loser on trade deals. Do you really think Kasich or Jeb or Rubio or Christie would have saved Carrier jobs? Do you really think they would have closed the border?
The Republicans who ran were all globalist free trade types...the types who sell out the US workers, the ones who require 2500 page trade deals where the uS always gets the shit deal..
Give Trump a chance..
@Oceander
@Frank Cannon
We don't know that Trump will do anything about the border situation. And as for "saving Carrier jobs" -- remember Solyndra?
-
You are a mindless drone. Pence saved Carrier by using IA taxpayers money to bride them to stay. It is costing the taxpayers $700 a job "saved" and still Carrier is moving jobs to Mexico. Donny did nothing because he has no power to do anything.
As for the border, wake me up when this wall is built.
They also claimed Trump saved Ford jobs as well but that was Ohio offering big tax breaks
-
Yes !! I did not know those people before Trump took over their souls but I have known many people over at TOS that I really, really admired who became corrupted and actually became different people when Trump somehow took over their minds.
They were both delightful people, with whom I agreed on many subjects (some of which are diametrically opposed to what Trump believes).
Like the people on TOS, they completely changed when Trump became their god, and now it seems their only purpose here is to mock and deride. (When is the last time you've seen a thoughtful, positive post from ANY of the Trump lovers here??)
Some people think that this nastiness was always under the surface, but I'm not sure. I think Trump love really changes people for the worse (not voting for Trump, but being a mindless groupie).
It really is sad to see.
-
It would have been different if Clinton or Trump wanted a recount in Michigan but Stein is a 1 percenter who simply isn't going to change the outcome in her favor. Schuette mentioning a recount hindering Michigan's electoral college vote is interesting. I think he's basically accusing Stein of trying to prevent Michigan's EC votes from being counted.
"If allowed to proceed, the statewide hand recount could cost Michigan taxpayers millions of dollars and would put Michigan voters at risk of being disenfranchised in the electoral college," Schuette, in a filing signed by Chief Legal Counsel Matthew Schneider, said in asking the Michigan Supreme Court for immediate consideration of his petition barring a recount.
There it is. The true intent.
-
There it is. The true intent.
Bill Schuette is a very sharp guy. He'll make a great governor.
-
There it is. The true intent.
You are correct. If the dems can get those three states tied up where they can't certify, then the congress votes.
The reason for this is not to change the outcome, but so the dems can keep the narrative out there that Trump didn't legitimately win. Same as they did Bush. :patriot:
-
Depends on what you mean by legitimately win. He appears to have won the Electoral College, which is certainly legitimate, but he appears to have lost the popular vote, which means he is a technical winner only and does not have a mandate. That this would weaken him is par for the course, and the democrats are entitled to have at it. The same would take place if the shoe were on the other foot.
-
Depends on what you mean by legitimately win. He appears to have won the Electoral College, which is certainly legitimate, but he appears to have lost the popular vote, which means he is a technical winner only and does not have a mandate. That this would weaken him is par for the course, and the democrats are entitled to have at it. The same would take place if the shoe were on the other foot.
There is a reason there is an electoral college. To keep New York and California from electing a president. If you adhere to and believe in the constitution you would never question it!!!
He is not weakened. That is democrat spin, which must be your belief too.
I always thought you were a dem. Now I know you are. The only people that challenge the electoral college are!!!
He had 306 to her 235. THAT IS A MANDATE!! Along with all the other races. Aside from NC. The dems stole it here from our governor. Every republican won by a good margin but him. Due to Durham County being allowed to stay open much later due to supposed voting problems. NC has 17 days of early voting, so this is bullshit!
So you keep parroting the dem talking points. It is befitting of you!
The GOP HAD A GREAT election and we are happy as hell
You on the other hand have nothing! 888high58888 :tongue2:
-
There is a reason there is an electoral college. To keep New York and California from electing a president. If you adhere to and believe in the constitution you would never question it!!!
He is not weakened. That is democrat spin, which must be your belief too.
I always thought you were a dem. Now I know you are. The only people that challenge the electoral college are!!!
He had 306 to her 235. THAT IS A MANDATE!! Along with all the other races. Aside from NC. The dems stole it here from our governor. Every republican won by a good margin but him. Due to Durham County being allowed to stay open much later due to supposed voting problems. NC has 17 days of early voting, so this is bullshit!
So you keep parroting the dem talking points. It is befitting of you!
The GOP HAD A GREAT election and we are happy as hell
You on the other hand have nothing! 888high58888 :tongue2:
First, you don't know diddly about me, as is evident from your post. Try again; or rather, please don't, it gets tiresome.
Second, he's already repudiated a whole slew of those campaign promises you said were the only reason he was worth voting for. What happened to that holy vow made during the debate that if he won he would have Clinton investigated? That was a solemn vow then, but it's nothing more than a turd on his shoes now that he got what he wanted out of you. And the wall? Whatever happened to that? Now we have amnesty in all but name.
I've got plenty: mostly the thrill of watching just how far you can contort yourself mentally trying to convince yourself that his lies really weren't lies.
And lastly, the Electoral College serves many good purposes - I wholeheartedly agree with it, as you would know if you ever read what I posted instead of reading what you thought I posted - but creating a popular mandate is not one of them. One of the purposes of the electoral college is to bring certainty in a reasonably short period of time to a process that by its nature could drag on forever. That it does with dispatch. However, it does it sometimes despite the popular will; it is not always in conformity with the popular will. And in those cases, you get a president who lacks a popular mandate; who cannot blithely assume that a majority of the populace wants him to enact his agenda.
That is what Trump is: a technical winner who lacks a popular mandate. Get used to it, or you're going to end up being even more disappointed than you will be in any event, as he tacks further and further to the left - on that point you could consult with Ann Coulter, who has already called him on that.
-
First, you don't know diddly about me, as is evident from your post. Try again; or rather, please don't, it gets tiresome.
Second, he's already repudiated a whole slew of those campaign promises you said were the only reason he was worth voting for. What happened to that holy vow made during the debate that if he won he would have Clinton investigated? That was a solemn vow then, but it's nothing more than a turd on his shoes now that he got what he wanted out of you. And the wall? Whatever happened to that? Now we have amnesty in all but name.
I've got plenty: mostly the thrill of watching just how far you can contort yourself mentally trying to convince yourself that his lies really weren't lies.
And lastly, the Electoral College serves many good purposes - I wholeheartedly agree with it, as you would know if you ever read what I posted instead of reading what you thought I posted - but creating a popular mandate is not one of them. One of the purposes of the electoral college is to bring certainty in a reasonably short period of time to a process that by its nature could drag on forever. That it does with dispatch. However, it does it sometimes despite the popular will; it is not always in conformity with the popular will. And in those cases, you get a president who lacks a popular mandate; who cannot blithely assume that a majority of the populace wants him to enact his agenda.
That is what Trump is: a technical winner who lacks a popular mandate. Get used to it, or you're going to end up being even more disappointed than you will be in any event, as he tacks further and further to the left - on that point you could consult with Ann Coulter, who has already called him on that.
I know exactly who you are....
i have watched you up close for MANY YEARS..
The GOP has a huge mandate and to keep from getting INTO the sewer that you like to swim in.... I will say this....TRUMP IS NOT THE PRESIDENT YET...... WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE INAUGURATION.
You have no idea who he is.......JUST WAIT AND SEE!
YOU NEVER TRUMP PEOPLE ARE THE ANGRY ONES... YOU CANT STAND THAT WE ARE RIGHT!!!!
PITY YOU....
-
There is a reason there is an electoral college. To keep New York and California from electing a president. If you adhere to and believe in the constitution you would never question it!!!
He's saying Trump doesn't have a mandate, which I agree with. Not that Trump shouldn't be President. Do you agree there is a difference between these two positions?
-
I know exactly who you are....
i have watched you up close for MANY YEARS..
The GOP has a huge mandate and to keep from getting INTO the sewer that you like to swim in.... I will say this....TRUMP IS NOT THE PRESIDENT YET...... WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE INAUGURATION.
You have no idea who he is.......JUST WAIT AND SEE!
YOU NEVER TRUMP PEOPLE ARE THE ANGRY ONES... YOU CANT STAND THAT WE ARE RIGHT!!!!
PITY YOU....
Whatever. At least I know it's rude to shout in ALL CAPS, and that shouting in ALL CAPS is a pretty good indicator of who the angry hater is.
-
Whatever. At least I know it's rude to shout in ALL CAPS, and that shouting in ALL CAPS is a pretty good indicator of who the angry hater is.
I see shades of JimRob in that reply. Am I alone?
-
Give it up already. Losing over and over again during a primary season does not translate into winning a general election. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.
@Right_in_Virginia
The Cruz faction of the #NeverTrumpers will never "get over it". To them and those in their cult it all about hating Trump because they think Trump took what rightfully belonged to Cruz.
All this talk about any of the other GOP candidate beating Hillary is nonsense. Remember this is coming from folks that told us over and over again that Trump can not win. They have zero credibility with any kind of political analysis.
Trump beat all the other candidates and then he beat Hillary.
He beat everyone for one reason. He was the only authentic anti-establishment candidate. All the other major candidate were owned by Marxist globalists with the possible exception of Ted Cruz. Noticed I said "possible", lots of evidence points to Cruz being a globalist too. The voters have had it with globalism, open borders and one way trade deals. The corrupt DC establishment is the disease and Trump is the cure.
Every other candidate running was more of the same.
-
I know exactly who you are....
i have watched you up close for MANY YEARS..
The GOP has a huge mandate and to keep from getting INTO the sewer that you like to swim in.... I will say this....TRUMP IS NOT THE PRESIDENT YET...... WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE INAUGURATION.
You have no idea who he is.......JUST WAIT AND SEE!
YOU NEVER TRUMP PEOPLE ARE THE ANGRY ONES... YOU CANT STAND THAT WE ARE RIGHT!!!!
PITY YOU....
Wow. Paranoia much?
-
I know exactly who you are....
i have watched you up close for MANY YEARS..
The GOP has a huge mandate and to keep from getting INTO the sewer that you like to swim in.... I will say this....TRUMP IS NOT THE PRESIDENT YET...... WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE INAUGURATION.
You have no idea who he is.......JUST WAIT AND SEE!
YOU NEVER TRUMP PEOPLE ARE THE ANGRY ONES... YOU CANT STAND THAT WE ARE RIGHT!!!!
PITY YOU....
Calm down.
You won............... remember?
Stop with the self-righteous rage.
It's getting old. **nononono*
-
He beat everyone for one reason. He was the only authentic anti-establishment candidate. All the other major candidate were owned by Marxist globalists with the possible exception of Ted Cruz. Noticed I said "possible", lots of evidence points to Cruz being a globalist too. The voters have had it with globalism, open borders and one way trade deals. The corrupt DC establishment is the disease and Trump is the cure.
:silly:
Boy are you ever brainwashed.
-
Calm down.
You won............... remember?
Stop with the self-righteous rage.
It's getting old. **nononono*
I agree. Mr. Trump's election is now in the history books. Those who supported him won and those who did not were disappointed. Fairly straightforward, isn't it?
But with winning comes responsibility to deliver.
I happen to be one who never got around to supporting him. I will say this, however; I hope I become a strident supporter of his reelection in 4 years. I do. Meanwhile, a whole lot of promises need to be kept, a whole lot of effective governing needs to happen, and a whole lot of strong statesmanship needs to be exhibited. Strength of character and conviction regarding our Nation's best interest needs to be on full display. Clumsy mistakes on the international front must be minimal or better yet, absent.
The lip, the quip, and the tweet won't do it.
But, I eagerly await the desire to put a Re-Elect Trump sign in my front yard in 2020.
-
I agree. Mr. Trump's election is now in the history books. Those who supported him won and those who did not were disappointed. Fairly straightforward isn't it?
I happen to one who never got around to supporting him. I will say this, however; I hope I become a strident supporter of his reelection in 4 years. I do. Meanwhile, a whole lot of promises need to be kept, a whole lot of effective governing needs to happen, and a whole lot of strong statesmanship needs to be exhibited. Strength of character and conviction regarding our Nation's best interest needs to be on full display. Clumsy mistakes on the international front must be minimal or better yet, absent.
The lip, the quip, and the tweet won't do it.
But, I eagerly await the desire to put a Re-Elect Trump sign in my front yard in 2020.
I'll agree with this. My trump wishes:
1) enough with the economic populism
2) be more disciplined. No more gaffes. Stop saying stupid things on twitter
3) get rid of the alt-right. Get rid of crazies like Flynn's idiot son
4) my biggest worry: don't turn the federal government into a kleptocracy. I don't want to have to continuously defend this garbage for the next 4 years.
-
You are delusional, and as other posters have said - something just not right with you.
Trump barely won. He almost blew the most winnable election in American POTUS history. It if hadn't been for Julian Assange and the eleventh-hour re-investigation by the FBI, he probably would have lost. I personally know many, many Hillary fanatics who woke up at the very last minute.
My point is that Oceander is not delusional. I think the Trumpsters are flirting, at least, with delusions. Trump was the lousiest candidate we had, but the GOPe secured his nomination anyway. And I think recent indications are that many Trumpsters are already becoming disillusioned.
-
I'll agree with this. My trump wishes:
1) enough with the economic populism
2) be more disciplined. No more gaffes. Stop saying stupid things on twitter
3) get rid of the alt-right. Get rid of crazies like Flynn's idiot son
4) my biggest worry: don't turn the federal government into a kleptocracy. I don't want to have to continuously defend this garbage for the next 4 years.
No need to add to your post and Lando's, except that he ditches Twitter.
@Lando Lincoln
-
@Right_in_Virginia
The Cruz faction of the #NeverTrumpers will never "get over it". To them and those in their cult it all about hating Trump because they think Trump took what rightfully belonged to Cruz.
All this talk about any of the other GOP candidate beating Hillary is nonsense. Remember this is coming from folks that told us over and over again that Trump can not win. They have zero credibility with any kind of political analysis.
Trump beat all the other candidates and then he beat Hillary.
He beat everyone for one reason. He was the only authentic anti-establishment candidate. All the other major candidate were owned by Marxist globalists with the possible exception of Ted Cruz. Noticed I said "possible", lots of evidence points to Cruz being a globalist too. The voters have had it with globalism, open borders and one way trade deals. The corrupt DC establishment is the disease and Trump is the cure.
Every other candidate running was more of the same.
Maybe that applies to the Cruz fans; doesn't apply to me (never was much of a Cruz fan). Try again.
-
I'll agree with this. My trump wishes:
1) enough with the economic populism
2) be more disciplined. No more gaffes. Stop saying stupid things on twitter
3) get rid of the alt-right. Get rid of crazies like Flynn's idiot son
4) my biggest worry: don't turn the federal government into a kleptocracy. I don't want to have to continuously defend this garbage for the next 4 years.
I made a point to see if you added Twitter to your gripe list. Good to see you are very consistent.
(http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2016/4/11/Screen_Shot_2016-04-12_at_11.52.34_AM.png)
-
I made a point to see if you added Twitter to your gripe list. Good to see you are very consistent.
(http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2016/4/11/Screen_Shot_2016-04-12_at_11.52.34_AM.png)
Dick Cheney said that Trump was bypassing the press, which in and of itself is great. But Trump makes himself, and the country, look stupid with his Tweets.
Nothing wrong with Donny hiring a filter.
He can't even get his spelling right. One of his big statements the other day had a misspelling. Ridiculously stupid for President elect to have spelling mistakes in his communiques.
-
Trump barely one. He almost blew the most winnable election in American POTUS history.
Trump won 306 EV's. I don't consider that "barely".
It doesn't matter what you think he "almost" did @the_doc . What matters is what Trump actually accomplished--against a rabid, hostile media, against rabid, hostile NT's in his own party, against the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into Hillary Clinton's campaign by globalist special interest groups, Trump pulled off a stunning victory --- a victory heard and being echoed around the globe.
Trump did it all without the media, without the NT's, without special interest money and by shattering Clinton's blue wall---the same wall the pundits and haters laughed at him for trying to break through.
Pretty damn impressive. ^-^
-
She was the slightly more unpopular of the two most unpopular candidates in modern history.
Yes... :amen:
-
Trump barely one. He almost blew the most winnable election in American POTUS history. It if hadn't been for Julian Assange and the eleventh-hour re-investigation by the FBI, he probably would have lost. I personally know many, many Hillary fanatics who woke up at the very last minute.
My point is that Oceander is not delusional. I think the Trumpsters are flirting, at least, with delusions. Trump was the lousiest candidate we had, but the GOPe secured his nomination anyway.
Honest question -- why do any of that matter in the slightest now? And I'm say that with respect both to those who are attacking Trump, and those who are claiming some great victory. Usually, the "mandate" issue is important because a President faces at least one house of Congress controlled by the other party, and so uses the "mandate" argument to pressure potential swing votes in Congress. But that's not the case here because the GOP controls both houses. He won, and now has to work with the GOP Congress. Whether we call his victory great or small makes no difference.
In terms of the pure politics of it, I do think it's noteworthy that he won while being so heavily outspent, and by largely bypassing the media filter to get his message out. It's certainly interesting for political scientists.
And I think recent indications are that many Trumpsters are already becoming disillusioned.
I'm not sure how true that is except on the fringes. Personally, I'd be somewhat pleased if some of his most ardent supporters are becoming disillusioned, because I didn't agree with him on a lot of things anyway. But his approval rating overall has been climbing pretty consistently since the election, to the point where his favorability/unfavorability numbers are now even instead of being massively underwater.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-approval-rating-soars-96-of-supporters-hopeful/article/2607887
-
I would say that most GOP candidates would have beat her, with the exceptions being the farther left they went, the less likely it would be that they would win.
After all, what would be the major differences?
Her own behavior as Secretary of State did her in, with the e-mails, and such.
Why democrats do not understand this is beyond me.
"Why democrats do not understand this is beyond me."
The pit of inability to see reality in Democrats is bottomless. I have a very liberal step-daughter and her husband. They really believed Hillary was the perfect candidate.
Of course, they were totally ignoring Hillary's many faults and simply looking at The Orange Toad and not understanding how anybody could vote for him. They failed to understand that many people just thought Hillary was worse. Which she was.
-
Trump won 306 EV's. I don't consider that "barely".
It doesn't matter what you think he "almost" did @the_doc . What matters is what Trump actually accomplished--against a rabid, hostile media, against rabid, hostile NT's in his own party, against the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into Hillary Clinton's campaign by globalist special interest groups, Trump pulled off a stunning victory --- a victory heard and being echoed around the globe.
Trump did it all without the media, without the NT's, without special interest money and by shattering Clinton's blue wall---the same wall the pundits and haters laughed at him for trying to break through.
Pretty damn impressive. ^-^
He did. And, it was.
Yet, he never resonated with me. Now, he has an opportunity to convince me with job performance. I hope he does.
-
There was only one poll that was consistently correct about Trump being in the lead from essentially day one after becoming the nominee - a national online poll application known as EZ Poll (used by commentator Larry Elder).
It is a ridiculously easy application. Once you join, you can put out any question to all of the other members. There are millions of members spread across the whole U.S.! That actually gives it a much broader spectrum than any poll from "mainstream" organization, since their sample is much smaller (generally less than 5000) and also confined to a specific region or area.
Also the EZ Polls are totally anonymous as the hosts do not collect personal information on the members. That last thing that makes EZ Poll superior is that it eliminates the "Bradley Effect" - a principle named after an election in the 1960s between Tom Bradley and Sam Yorty for L.A. mayor. Tom Bradley was significantly ahead in the polls right up to election day but lost anyway. Some pollsters came up with the explanation that many voters when asked on the street or the telephone lied about supporting Bradley because they did not want to be thought racists. Then on election day, those same people cast votes for Yorty.
Since EZ Polls are anonymous, nobody has to worry about giving a 100% honest response and the Bradley Effect is eliminated.
All of the other pollsters poo-poohed EZ Poll results, yet they turned out to be the correct one and the rest of the pollsters were full of crap.
There is also the effect that most polls only got about 85% coverage - which means that there was always about 15% of those asked who either refused to answer or said that they had not decided yet. The cartoonist who does Dilbert (a Trump supporter) said that he believes that most of that hidden, non-responsive 15% were Trump supporters who felt intimidated by all of the harsh anti-Trump fanaticism and therefore did their talking in the polling booth and refused to make their opinions known when asked about them prior.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
The Cruz faction of the #NeverTrumpers will never "get over it". To them and those in their cult it all about hating Trump because they think Trump took what rightfully belonged to Cruz.
All this talk about any of the other GOP candidate beating Hillary is nonsense. Remember this is coming from folks that told us over and over again that Trump can not win. They have zero credibility with any kind of political analysis.
Trump beat all the other candidates and then he beat Hillary.
He beat everyone for one reason. He was the only authentic anti-establishment candidate. All the other major candidate were owned by Marxist globalists with the possible exception of Ted Cruz. Noticed I said "possible", lots of evidence points to Cruz being a globalist too. The voters have had it with globalism, open borders and one way trade deals. The corrupt DC establishment is the disease and Trump is the cure.
Every other candidate running was more of the same.
You are wrong about almost everything in that post. You never understood the NeverTrump guys and gals, because you never listened to us. :nono:
-
Aren't you the won arguing an "alternate reality?" What would have happened if someone other than Trump had won the nomination?
The only reality we actually have is the one in which Trump won both the nomination and the election. He wasn't my guy in the primaries, but I'm glad as hell me managed to beat her.
Rubio was not in my top list of candidates in the primaries, but if had won the nomination, he probably would have beaten Hillary by anywhere from five to seven million votes.
You really have to look at how many average non-political types looked at Trump and Hillary, and it would not be difficult to see how many of them would go for a young, good-looking guy like Rubio who didn't have anywhere near the negatives Trump and Hillary had. And you certainly wouldn't have had the millions of NeverTrumpsters being NeverRubios.
Trump won because Hillary was a lousy candidate. Even so, she still got two million more popular votes than Trump. If Trump was that super, why didn't he win the popular vote?
I'm not ecstatic that Trump won, but I'm damn happy Hillary lost. That probably sums up the attitudes of millions of people, like me, who voted for Trump.
-
Well since the polls were so accurate. I'm sure the ones that said everyone else would lose were right on. :whistle:
The polls weren't that far off. Many polls had it a tight election with Hillary having a slight lead at the end. That's exactly how it turned out. Hillary won two million more votes than Trump. In any other election in history that's good enough for a win. But Hillary lost key states. I'm not sorry she lost, however let's not exaggerate the extent of Trump's win.
-
As @EasyAce has said, most elections are between snake oil salesmen. In this one, they offered snakes.
One of the snakes had to win.
It just happened to be Trump.
ha, ha :beer:
-
He did. And, it was.
Yet, he never resonated with me. Now, he has an opportunity to convince me with job performance. I hope he does.
I do too. ^-^
-
They really believed Hillary was the perfect candidate.
The argument I kept hearing from those types were "she was the most experienced/qualified candidate in history", which was a flat-out joke even if you took it on its own terms. And it was usually accompanied by a statement that Trump was the "least qualified" candidate in history.
But I thought that such statements said more about the person who valued them than they did about Clinton. There's the obvious retort that she doesn't have any experience at being successful -- just at occupying an office. But implicit in that evaluation of the relative experience of Clinton/Trump is that having actual working experience in the private sector, in business formation, etc., is considered of no value at all.
That's really pretty remarkable given the incredible important of the role the federal government plays with respect to the private sector. Laws, regulations, mandates, taxes, payrolls, labor issues, subsidies, profit-making....a lifelong professional politician has no significant experience at all in how those governmental actions actually affect the private sector. So you'd think that having experience in all that would be incredibly valuable. But instead, the diehard Clinton supporters consider that valueless.
Tell you a lot about them.
-
Trump barely one. He almost blew the most winnable election in American POTUS history. It if hadn't been for Julian Assange and the eleventh-hour re-investigation by the FBI, he probably would have lost. I personally know many, many Hillary fanatics who woke up at the very last minute.
My point is that Oceander is not delusional. I think the Trumpsters are flirting, at least, with delusions. Trump was the lousiest candidate we had, but the GOPe secured his nomination anyway. And I think recent indications are that many Trumpsters are already becoming disillusioned.
Any discussions of Trump the candidate are moot. He is now Trump the president-elect and one must now appraise him as he goes - history or speculations no longer apply.
Mark Levin, who supported Trump and still does IN SOME REGARDS, has never had any illusions about his status ideologically. Trump ran as a populist (what Levin calls an agrarian populist) and therefore can reasonably be expected to disappoint anyone who is a strident conservative.
Some of the things he will be doing in the first 100 days (and now he is already at work in some regard, even before the clock is ticking) will be to fulfill campaign promises - already a departure from the average president-elect because most candidates simply explain away not keeping promises that are not politically advantageous.
In the case of the Carrier and Boeing issues, Trump is setting the tone for his administration to do what they say they will do, regardless of the political consequences. I expect that he will not be doctrinaire in that regard, but will govern according to what he believes is the correct thing to do both politically and in matters of administration as things evolve.
The fact that he probably wants to be reelected suggests that he will indeed govern using triangulation - with Congress and the People as the second and third parts of the structure (according to standard Machiavellian/Alinskyite principles of governance).
-
The argument I kept hearing from those types were "she was the most experienced/qualified candidate in history", which was a flat-out joke even if you took it on its own terms. And it was usually accompanied by a statement that Trump was the "least qualified" candidate in history.
But I thought that such statements said more about the person who valued them than they did about Clinton. There's the obvious retort that she doesn't have any experience at being successful -- just at occupying an office. But implicit in that evaluation of the relative experience of Clinton/Trump is that having actual working experience in the private sector, in business formation, etc., is considered of no value at all.
That's really pretty remarkable given the incredible important of the role the federal government plays with respect to the private sector. Laws, regulations, mandates, taxes, payrolls, labor issues, subsidies, profit-making....a lifelong professional politician has no significant experience at all in how those governmental actions actually affect the private sector. So you'd think that having experience in all that would be incredibly valuable. But instead, the diehard Clinton supporters consider that valueless.
Tell you a lot about them.
I agree completely. Most people don't fully grasp that our Constitution allows for a citizen-President to be elected by the People (caps intended).
-
Trump won 306 EV's. I don't consider that "barely".
It doesn't matter what you think he "almost" did @the_doc . What matters is what Trump actually accomplished--against a rabid, hostile media, against rabid, hostile NT's in his own party, against the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into Hillary Clinton's campaign by globalist special interest groups, Trump pulled off a stunning victory --- a victory heard and being echoed around the globe.
Trump did it all without the media, without the NT's, without special interest money and by shattering Clinton's blue wall---the same wall the pundits and haters laughed at him for trying to break through.
Pretty damn impressive. ^-^
Trump won most of those impressive (?) electoral votes by squeaker margins and lost the popular vote nationwide. Shattering Clinton's blue wall is a pretty grandiose way of describing the victory. Trump won only because HRC was an even more awful candidate than Dishonest Donald. Comey and Assange dragged him through the chinks in the blue wall at the very last minute. Pardon me for remaining unimpressed with Trump.
-
I do too. ^-^
We agree! I will allow the objectivity that he may convince me. There is a flip to that but I can only control what I think.
-
The first three words would have sufficed.
-
Trump won most of those impressive (?) electoral votes by squeaker margins and lost the popular vote nationwide. Shattering Clinton's blue wall is a pretty grandiose way of describing the victory. Trump won only because HRC was an even more awful candidate than Dishonest Donald. Comey and Assange dragged him through the chinks in the blue wall at the very last minute. Pardon me for remaining unimpressed with Trump.
The actual popular vote will never be known, because to save costs some states order an end to counting votes as soon as the margin of advantage for any candidate exceeds the remaining uncounted votes. So in any state where Trump won by a sufficiently large margin to allow the state to stop counting votes while a significant percentage still remained, the real popular vote total would not be known. That means many thousands (millions) of votes for Trump may still be uncounted.
Add to that the fact that the Electoral college has a foundation in a very sophisticated principle of governance specifically chosen by the Founders, which supersedes the popular vote in value to the union in all regards. The Founder may have been among the smartest people of all time, not just their own time.
Larry Arn president of Hillsdale College (on the short list for department of Education head) explained this recently on a radio show and he makes a compelling case for the wisdom of the Founders in that regard. The Electoral College actually preserves the SPIRIT of representative governance far better than a simple popular vote - because without rules to maintain integrity of the INTENT of the presidential election (to represent ALL of the people not just urban population centers or states with overwhelmingly large populations) pure democracy is nothing more than a synonym for mob rule.
-
@LateForLunch
I agree. My point was that all of the bragging by the Trumpsters is unwarranted (and sophomoric).
-
They were both delightful people, with whom I agreed on many subjects (some of which are diametrically opposed to what Trump believes).
Like the people on TOS, they completely changed when Trump became their god, and now it seems their only purpose here is to mock and deride. (When is the last time you've seen a thoughtful, positive post from ANY of the Trump lovers here??)
Some people think that this nastiness was always under the surface, but I'm not sure. I think Trump love really changes people for the worse (not voting for Trump, but being a mindless groupie).
It really is sad to see.
A person's personality is generally set by the age of 3-4 years old. It can change after that point, but only in response to a severe shock (death of a parent, natural disaster, war, etc).
If a person's behavior suddenly changes, absent that sort of shock, it's more likely that what you are seeing is their natural personality... and that the polite mask we all wear in society finally dropped.
---
As an aside, in many Asian cultures, businesspeople will not conclude a deal without first going out and drinking first. They want to see how the other side will behave once the 'mask' is dropped. And if the true face of a person is repugnant, they will not seal the deal.
-
Trump won most of those impressive (?) electoral votes by squeaker margins
Who cares? Trump did what everyone said he couldn't .... he won.
I see no need for further debate about this. :shrug:
-
Who cares? Trump did what everyone said he couldn't .... he won.
I see no need for further debate about this. :shrug:
hah hah 'Cant argue with that, Righty!
Just as an aside to a previous post about personalities - accumulation of neuron density is not normally concluded until roughly the age of six (or a little sooner in some genetic variants). Intellectual capacity has some significant bearing on personality formation. Also most children do not even develop a workable, consistent sense of the difference between reality/fantasy until about the age of ten. Added to that is environmental reinforcement (positive nurturing, normal stresses/strains of social interaction and any traumatic events). The generally-acknowledged age when most people's personalities are fairly well set (in a fundamentally reactive sense) is in the 20s.
I have two clinical psychologists in my family and my mother had a masters degree in early childhood education (and she did a thesis on Piaget, who was an expert in early childhood development), so those are not just my opinions. I have paid attention when those people have spoken about children and the mind and read extensively on the topic on my own out of curiosity.
-
A person's personality is generally set by the age of 3-4 years old. It can change after that point, but only in response to a severe shock (death of a parent, natural disaster, war, etc).
If a person's behavior suddenly changes, absent that sort of shock, it's more likely that what you are seeing is their natural personality... and that the polite mask we all wear in society finally dropped.
---
As an aside, in many Asian cultures, businesspeople will not conclude a deal without first going out and drinking first. They want to see how the other side will behave once the 'mask' is dropped. And if the true face of a person is repugnant, they will not seal the deal.
Well, some of these people were very good at masking their true natures. I know it's easy on the internet to pretend to be what you aren't, but why pretend to be a decent person when you're not? What could these people possibly gain by being the pretenders they clearly have been for years?
Why pretend to be conservative? Why pretend to have moral values? Why pretend to believe in ethics?
And then throw them all aside and tear the mask off just because a jerk like Donald Trump becomes your hero?
I'll never understand what happened to these people? Why didn't they just say, "I'm a jerk and I've always been a jerk, so deal with it?"
I guess I'm too honest to try to fool people for years into thinking I am what I'm not.
The person I've been on political forums for 15 years is exactly who I am. I can't imagine the pressure these pretenders have been under all these years acting like they're decent human beings.
Frankly I'm surprised they didn't crack before Trump.
-
Who cares? Trump did what everyone said he couldn't .... he won.
I see no need for further debate about this. :shrug:
Depends on what you mean by won. Did he get the electoral college? Apparently. Did he get the greatest amount of support from the American people? No.
You have a technical winner with no popular mandate. If you keep running around like pompous overstuffed sausages you'll suffer the consequences sooner and not later. There is more support in the American people for the GOPers in Congress you all hate than there is for Trump.
-
Why pretend to be conservative? Why pretend to have moral values? Why pretend to believe in ethics?
Sounds like you're in need of a refresher course:
Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
-
Quote from: musiclady on Today at 08:03:58 PM
Why pretend to be conservative? Why pretend to have moral values? Why pretend to believe in ethics?
Quote from: Right_in_Virginia on Today at 08:12:47 PM
Sounds like you're in need of a refresher course:
Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye
This person that you quoted above is someone that I have thought of as my friend. She has often impugned the morality and faith of Trump supporters. In this same thread - talking about me and another Trump supporter - she said:
...
Like the people on TOS, they completely changed when Trump became their god, and now it seems their only purpose here is to mock and deride. (When is the last time you've seen a thoughtful, positive post from ANY of the Trump lovers here??)
...
When Trump became "my god".........
How do you respond to a statement like that? A completely unfounded accusation that has not one iota of a connection to reality. I would be very interested to see this person go back through all of the posts I've ever made since I've been a member here, or at Free Republic, and show the world when Trump became "my god".
Or any other Trump supporter here.
This person used to claim that her insults weren't necessarily directed at anyone here - just some of Trump's supporters. However, this comment above was directed toward me and another poster here.
The arrogance is breathtaking!
-
This person that you quoted above is someone that I have thought of as my friend. She has often impugned the morality and faith of Trump supporters. In this same thread - talking about me and another Trump supporter - she said:
When Trump became "my god".........
How do you respond to a statement like that? A completely unfounded accusation that has not one iota of a connection to reality. I would be very interested to see this person go back through all of the posts I've ever made since I've been a member here, or at Free Republic, and show the world when Trump became "my god".
Or any other Trump supporter here.
This person used to claim that her insults weren't necessarily directed at anyone here - just some of Trump's supporters. However, this comment above was directed toward me and another poster here.
The arrogance is breathtaking!
For many, political discussions are not about topical, substantive issues. They are about feelings and intuitions.
From their POV they are being completely rational and reasonable because launching and engaging in these excursions somehow ameliorates their feelings of anxiety and humiliation. It makes them feel better to do it, so from their POV it is morally correct (being feeling-centered).
The universal, ubiquitous factors involved in these venomous, vehement posts are vituperations (the fixing of cause or blame for bad things onto others) and externalizing their own responsibility for their aggressive verbal behavior (redirecting any responsibility for hateful, hurtful, harsh, unfair statements onto the behavior of others).
Most of this behavior is motivated by unconscious motives and underlying feelings of anxiety and shame, and that is why I do not blame these people nor consider them to be bad people.
I do hope, however that the behavior is transitory and that in time, some of the hard feelings will be changed with new information and the pattern of denial/ offensiveness will be broken.
In short, they display all of the insensitivity, refusal to take responsibility for contradictory behavior and cruelty that they attribute to the object of their vituperations and accusations.
-
LOL! If I had a nickel for every time a Trump lover called me "sanctimonious," "judgmental," "arrogant," or the like, I'd be the richest woman on earth. (The irony is that they don't get that their name-calling is rooted in their own arrogance).
Calling others names just a weak excuse for dealing with the fact that Trump is in a lousy person whom they love, and not dealing with the reality of who he is based on absolute standards. (And the liberal misuse of the Scripture "Judge not" would be comical if it weren't a dangerous misuse of Scripture).
The fact of the matter is that a handful of people here DID change, and for the worse. They lost values they once seemed to have. They once agreed on the sanctity of life, they once agreed on the importance of character, they once acted as if they were conservative, they once treated others well, and now they don't. ALL because of Donald Trump.
Fortunately, there are just a handful here, and my IGNORE list is short, though not sweet...
All I know is that I am exactly the same person I have always been, and I will never let any politician change my values, nor anything about me. If my loyalty to a human being (even a good one, and not a vile and degenerate creep like Donald Trump) makes me act like a different person, then I will give up the internet altogether. And if any politician makes me lose my conservatism, self-respect, moral values, or even makes me defend someone who sticks out his middle finger at morality and decency as Trump has done his entire life, I will do some serious soul-searching.
But I won't let that happen, and clearly, neither will most of the others who post on this fine forum.
-
This person that you quoted above is someone that I have thought of as my friend. She has often impugned the morality and faith of Trump supporters. In this same thread - talking about me and another Trump supporter - she said:
When Trump became "my god".........
How do you respond to a statement like that? A completely unfounded accusation that has not one iota of a connection to reality. I would be very interested to see this person go back through all of the posts I've ever made since I've been a member here, or at Free Republic, and show the world when Trump became "my god".
Or any other Trump supporter here.
This person used to claim that her insults weren't necessarily directed at anyone here - just some of Trump's supporters. However, this comment above was directed toward me and another poster here.
The arrogance is breathtaking!
I don't even know if Trump is your "god" alice. I haven't read a thing you've written in months, because you went away and hid rather than discussing things on the open forum.
Many months ago, you did take every criticism of any Trump supporter, or Trump himself personally, and lashed out against anything anyone said against him or any aspect of any of his supporters. But then you disappeared.
I haven't directed a single comment to you since you started whining that I was saying bad things to you that I wasn't saying. I don't know if Trump changed you, because I haven't read a thing you posted in your private forum here.
So you don't need to bother yourself with defending against things I say. I know that because of your loyalty to Trump, I lost what I thought was a friendship with you, but that was entirely your choice. When I said that Trump's rhetoric attracted racists, you whined that I was calling you a racist. When I said that Trump was amoral (he is), you whined that we weren't electing a preacher.
That was during the primary, and I haven't thought a thing about you since then because you disappeared. So if you think I'm aiming my posts about Trump lackeys at you, then you are mistaken. You have buddies here who stuck their heads out occasionally to mock and deride non-Trump lovers, and then went back into your Trump hidey hole where people who disagreed weren't allowed to post.
You didn't come out and throw grenades (at least not that I saw) and I actually respected you for that.
Other than that, you can stop worrying that anything I say has anything to do with you. It doesn't.
Just put me on Ignore and forget I exist.
You'll live a longer, happier life if you don't let your feelings get hurt by things that aren't in the least about you.
I will, however, continue criticizing Trump, because he is exactly who I said he was a year ago.
A debauched liberal narcissist......
-
I don't even know if Trump is your "god" alice. I haven't read a thing you've written in months, because you went away and hid rather than discussing things on the open forum.
Many months ago, you did take every criticism of any Trump supporter, or Trump himself personally, and lashed out against anything anyone said against him or any aspect of any of his supporters. But then you disappeared.
I haven't directed a single comment to you since you started whining that I was saying bad things to you that I wasn't saying. I don't know if Trump changed you, because I haven't read a thing you posted in your private forum here.
So you don't need to bother yourself with defending against things I say. I know that because of your loyalty to Trump, I lost what I thought was a friendship with you, but that was entirely your choice. When I said that Trump's rhetoric attracted racists, you whined that I was calling you a racist. When I said that Trump was amoral (he is), you whined that we weren't electing a preacher.
That was during the primary, and I haven't thought a thing about you since then because you disappeared. So if you think I'm aiming my posts about Trump lackeys at you, then you are mistaken. You have buddies here who stuck their heads out occasionally to mock and deride non-Trump lovers, and then went back into your Trump hidey hole where people who disagreed weren't allowed to post.
You didn't come out and throw grenades (at least not that I saw) and I actually respected you for that.
Other than that, you can stop worrying that anything I say has anything to do with you. It doesn't.
Just put me on Ignore and forget I exist.
You'll live a longer, happier life if you don't let your feelings get hurt by things that aren't in the least about you.
I will, however, continue criticizing Trump, because he is exactly who I said he was a year ago.
A debauched liberal narcissist......
See this is a perfect example of what rankles Trump supporters. People with (forgive me) big mouths make horribly harsh statements and lump all Trump supporters (even reluctant ones like most conservatives) into categories then deny that they insulted anyone when they have actually insulted EVERYONE (who disagrees with them about Trump).
I mean, what the above poster has done is to essentially say that it is her opinion that effectively all Trump supporters are loathsome, stupid, grossly-irresponsible lowlifes, then in the same breath denies that she has insulted anyone.
"You cannot be for Me and against Me." - Some Immortal Guy (describing the impossibility of both being for morality and against it in some sort of weird "quantum state").
I doubt the principle in my post will respond directly because she stated awhile back (when I had the insane gall to suggest that she was not behaving like a lady at all) that she was putting me on ignore. That may insulate her personally from reading what I believe to be the truth about her and others similar to her, but it does not prevent me from presenting my opinion for others to consider.
I would have bygones be bygones and proceed into the future as friends with everyone on this forum and/or who self-identify as a conservative. But that desire is tempered by the reality that it takes two to make peace and only one to make war.
-
See this is a perfect example of what rankles Trump supporters. People with (forgive me) big mouths make horribly harsh statements and lump all Trump supporters (even reluctant ones like most conservatives) into categories then deny that they insulted anyone when they have actually insulted EVERYONE (who disagrees with them about Trump).
I mean, what the above poster has done is to essentially say that it is her opinion that effectively all Trump supporters are loathsome, stupid, grossly-irresponsible lowlifes, then in the same breath denies that she has insulted anyone.
"You cannot be for Me and against Me." - Some Immortal Guy (describing the impossibility of both being for morality and against it in some sort of weird "quantum state").
I doubt the principle in my post will respond directly because she stated awhile back (when I had the insane gall to suggest that she was not behaving like a lady at all) that she was putting me on ignore. That may insulate her personally from reading what I believe to be the truth about her and others similar to her, but it does not prevent me from presenting my opinion for others to consider.
I would have bygones be bygones and proceed into the future as friends with everyone on this forum and/or who self-identify as a conservative. But that desire is tempered by the reality that it takes two to make peace and only one to make war.
You can make a case for Mutually Assured Destruction on both sides. I'm a NeverTrumper who hopes he succeeds, but it won't stop me from speaking out when I disagree with him.
Similarly, if the brow-beating continues from spiking the football Trump supporters, you basically tell me that discussion is not possible with you.
-
So NT's should just sit back and keep their (not me, I voted Trump) mouths shut if they see him harming the country? Is that your argument?
-
I don't even know if Trump is your "god" alice. I haven't read a thing you've written in months, because you went away and hid rather than discussing things on the open forum.
Many months ago, you did take every criticism of any Trump supporter, or Trump himself personally, and lashed out against anything anyone said against him or any aspect of any of his supporters. But then you disappeared.
I haven't directed a single comment to you since you started whining that I was saying bad things to you that I wasn't saying. I don't know if Trump changed you, because I haven't read a thing you posted in your private forum here.
So you don't need to bother yourself with defending against things I say. I know that because of your loyalty to Trump, I lost what I thought was a friendship with you, but that was entirely your choice. When I said that Trump's rhetoric attracted racists, you whined that I was calling you a racist. When I said that Trump was amoral (he is), you whined that we weren't electing a preacher.
That was during the primary, and I haven't thought a thing about you since then because you disappeared. So if you think I'm aiming my posts about Trump lackeys at you, then you are mistaken. You have buddies here who stuck their heads out occasionally to mock and deride non-Trump lovers, and then went back into your Trump hidey hole where people who disagreed weren't allowed to post.
You didn't come out and throw grenades (at least not that I saw) and I actually respected you for that.
Other than that, you can stop worrying that anything I say has anything to do with you. It doesn't.
Just put me on Ignore and forget I exist.
You'll live a longer, happier life if you don't let your feelings get hurt by things that aren't in the least about you.
I will, however, continue criticizing Trump, because he is exactly who I said he was a year ago.
A debauched liberal narcissist......
Not wanting to fight with you or anyone else here musiclady, but I have bolded some of your remarks above. The ones where you deny targeting me with your inappropriate insults about Trump supporters making Trump "their god". Anyone can read them for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions as to whether you were referring to me or not. I will repost your earlier quote in full:
They were both delightful people, with whom I agreed on many subjects (some of which are diametrically opposed to what Trump believes).
Like the people on TOS, they completely changed when Trump became their god, and now it seems their only purpose here is to mock and deride. (When is the last time you've seen a thoughtful, positive post from ANY of the Trump lovers here??)
Some people think that this nastiness was always under the surface, but I'm not sure. I think Trump love really changes people for the worse (not voting for Trump, but being a mindless groupie).
It really is sad to see.
As anyone can see - your remarks here on this thread absolutely are referring to me and @flowers , a person would have to be willfully blind not to see that. And yet, in your last post here - you are attempting to deny that. ???
Lastly, I am NOT in hiding. I don't post here very often anymore because this is largely an anti-Trump site and I am very much pro-Trump. This is not a very enjoyable site for me anymore - it used to be my internet home, a place I posted in every day and where I made many friends and enjoyed a nice camaraderie. Now....not so much. I'm not into being insulted if I can avoid it.
And don't worry about me - dear person who was once a friend of mine, but decided to abandon our friendship because of my political support for someone you don't like - I'm living the life I choose, a happy, content and peaceful life! I have so much thankfulness in my heart because I know that America will not be controlled by evil social engineers much longer. I won't waste my days defending my beliefs to people that claim to know what is in my heart and who I worship. Life is too short to spend time doing such things.
Not in hiding in the least! Enjoying days of serenity and astonishment at the glory of God - and that's God with a capital "G". Deny it if you want, it's all here in black and white for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions.
Last point, you said, "If I had a nickel for every time a Trump lover called me "sanctimonious," "judgmental," "arrogant," or the like, I'd be the richest woman on earth." - have you ever stopped to wonder why that is so? Why so many people have said those things about you? Maybe the next time you are on your knees, humbling yourself before God (the same God I worship), you might honestly and sincerely ask why people keep saying these things to you. I hope you ask this with a sincere heart - I know that if you do, you will come to a moment of self-enlightenment.
None of us are perfect by any means - believe me, I've had to have that same conversation with God, hopefully we all have. It is how we grow as Christians.
Shalom.
-
So NT's should just sit back and keep their (not me, I voted Trump) mouths shut if they see him harming the country? Is that your argument?
May I presume that remark was not directed at me? lol
I would expect that would be the response of the typical Trump supporter, because in their minds, everything Trump does is all about Making America Great Again, so how can he be wrong?
-
Not wanting to fight with you or anyone else here musiclady, but I have bolded some of your remarks above. The ones where you deny targeting me with your inappropriate insults about Trump supporters making Trump "their god". Anyone can read them for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions as to whether you were referring to me or not. I will repost your earlier quote in full:
As anyone can see - your remarks here on this thread absolutely are referring to me and @flowers , a person would have to be willfully blind not to see that. And yet, in your last post here - you are attempting to deny that. ???
Lastly, I am NOT in hiding. I don't post here very often anymore because this is largely an anti-Trump site and I am very much pro-Trump. This is not a very enjoyable site for me anymore - it used to be my internet home, a place I posted in every day and where I made many friends and enjoyed a nice camaraderie. Now....not so much. I'm not into being insulted if I can avoid it.
And don't worry about me - dear person who was once a friend of mine, but decided to abandon our friendship because of my political support for someone you don't like - I'm living the life I choose, a happy, content and peaceful life! I have so much thankfulness in my heart because I know that America will not be controlled by evil social engineers much longer. I won't waste my days defending my beliefs to people that claim to know what is in my heart and who I worship. Life is too short to spend time doing such things.
Not in hiding in the least! Enjoying days of serenity and astonishment at the glory of God - and that's God with a capital "G". Deny it if you want, it's all here in black and white for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions.
Last point, you said, "If I had a nickel for every time a Trump lover called me "sanctimonious," "judgmental," "arrogant," or the like, I'd be the richest woman on earth." - have you ever stopped to wonder why that is so? Why so many people have said those things about you? Maybe the next time you are on your knees, humbling yourself before God (the same God I worship), you might honestly and sincerely ask why people keep saying these things to you. I hope you ask this with a sincere heart - I know that if you do, you will come to a moment of self-enlightenment.
None of us are perfect by any means - believe me, I've had to have that same conversation with God, hopefully we all have. It is how we grow as Christians.
Shalom.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQiXroVtp0oG4zpY9Ntb0i-9wOa7YLcpcRbqweyYugBLj0IWgc)
We get it...your guy won.
Damn, this is tiresome.
If you want to leave TBR, then leave. Don't just threaten to do it. I learned long ago that I'll hardly be missed, that life will go on without me. This is an excellent site, and Trump supporters have their own section to dwell in.
-
May I presume that remark was not directed at me? lol
I would expect that would be the response of the typical Trump supporter, because in their minds, everything Trump does is all about Making America Great Again, so how can he be wrong?
No, at the other guy arguing. Trump needs to be called out when his behavior hurts the country.
Why is that so controversial?
-
No, at the other guy arguing. Trump needs to be called out when his behavior hurts the country.
Why is that so controversial?
We're in a new paradigm. 22222frying pan
-
Once again - I will say what we have been saying ALL ALONG - criticize Donald Trump to your heart's content, he is fair game.
However, if you present something as a FACT, when it is only your OPINION - a Trump supporter may come behind you to correct the misconception you have pushed. If you post an article from a "fake news" site - you might be corrected on that. If you say something negative, a Trump supporter might come along and say something positive about him.
That is the nature of a political forum, it's called a discussion, and it's healthy freedom of speech.....it's America.
AGAIN - it's not the criticism of Trump that we can't abide - it's the insults against us. I know - you want to say something like "tough luck, I'll say what I want" - fine, but don't accuse us of not being able to handle criticism of "our god Trump" - when it is the insults to our intelligence, faith, morality, ethics, etc - that galls us. And, it would gall you too, if we would respond in kind.
You want an intelligent discussion? Start with honesty and respect - and if I may say so - stop with the childish, churlish, vulgar, over-the-top and outright untruths. My opinion? You lost - America won - she lives to fight another day. Be part of the solution, or move out of the way and go stand with the losers who can't get a grip on reality.
Pfffft!
-
We're in a new paradigm. 22222frying pan
Rather than giving in to hopeless resignation, it might be better to create a new paradigm in which vituperation is left behind when posting wherever possible. Condemning or insulting those who disagree with us tends to shut down discussion rather than encourage it.
For those with a literary bent, I would suggest Tolkien's "Silmarillion", which he regarded as a more significant work than his Lord of the Rings/Hobbit series because the former deals directly with many of the precise ideological and political issues with which we are grappling today - namely how people who like to think of themselves as good people can stick together to combat wickedness, deception and evil. It also explores how good people are yet prone to vulnerability to distraction from the greater righteous struggle by our own weaknesses and by the willful conniving and subversive stategeries (sic) of their enemies.
-
You want an intelligent discussion? Start with honesty and respect - and if I may say so - stop with the childish, churlish, vulgar, over-the-top and outright untruths. My opinion? You lost - America won - she lives to fight another day. Be part of the solution, or move out of the way and go stand with the losers who can't get a grip on reality.
I find there is a disconnect in that paragraph, alice.
But, that's just me.
-
Once again - I will say what we have been saying ALL ALONG - criticize Donald Trump to your heart's content, he is fair game.
However, if you present something as a FACT, when it is only your OPINION - a Trump supporter may come behind you to correct the misconception you have pushed. If you post an article from a "fake news" site - you might be corrected on that. If you say something negative, a Trump supporter might come along and say something positive about him.
That is the nature of a political forum, it's called a discussion, and it's healthy freedom of speech.....it's America.
AGAIN - it's not the criticism of Trump that we can't abide - it's the insults against us. I know - you want to say something like "tough luck, I'll say what I want" - fine, but don't accuse us of not being able to handle criticism of "our god Trump" - when it is the insults to our intelligence, faith, morality, ethics, etc - that galls us. And, it would gall you too, if we would respond in kind.
You want an intelligent discussion? Start with honesty and respect - and if I may say so - stop with the childish, churlish, vulgar, over-the-top and outright untruths. My opinion? You lost - America won - she lives to fight another day. Be part of the solution, or move out of the way and go stand with the losers who can't get a grip on reality.
Pfffft!
Fair enough. Would take exception with the "losers" label because it may be misunderstood to be a blanket condemnation of people who are simply grieving over a painful loss because they care deeply about the country and feel (rightly or wrongly) that something is amiss which will come back to hurt us.
LOOOVE the avatar by the way. It is delightfully demented!!
-
And if she blew this, how would she do running the country?
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
She wouldn't have. She would have sold the rights to run whatever aspects of the country to the highest bidder that offered her a percentage of the money they stole.
Her sole function would have been to keep the Feebs and the Justice Dept away from them.
-
actually Hillary would have lost to any of the Republicans, Trump was her best bet.
@geronl
Yup. I think I even detected a hint of that in the article. The title alone is a strong hint,even if they didn't want to come right out and say it.
I'm hoping this massive loss by Bubbette! is enough to keep Bubbette! Jr out of office. I have no doubt her family money and her husband's family money can buy her a congressional seat somewhere,but I am hoping that after this the 'murikan publick voters that vote Dim will even be sick of hearing the Clinton name on a national ticket.
-
There are too many veterans, not too mention current government employees, that are intimately familiar with the procedures to safely handle classified information. That Hillary was not held accountable for her misdeeds was the main contributor to her unlikable and untrustworthy numbers.
No one besides Trump was seen in the same light. She finished at least 7 million votes shy of what Obama received...there's your difference.
@Night Hides Not
And now Trump seems determined to repeat the mistake by placing prominent retired Generals that have proven THEY can't be trusted in sensitive Cabinet positions.
I am just hoping this is an example of Trump "playing the game" for political purposes to keep the professional pols silent until he nominates who he really wants.
Yeah,I know,but it costs nothing to hope,does it?
-
I think that's true, but Trump also did go after her much more boldly than some other might have done. "Crooked Hillary" didn't sound all that good to me, but it did have the effect of reinforcing her biggest weakness. I dunno if someone like Jeb would have pushed that nearly as hard -- he might even have made excuses for/minimized her misconduct in debates.
@Maj. Bill Martin
No way in HELL would JEB have criticized Bubbette! in ANY harsh way. His mama would have kicked his punk mama boy's ass. Probably his wife,too.
-
Well either Trump or Hillary were going to blow the most winnable election in modern American History.. :shrug:
@montanajoe
The truth is a name could have been picked at random from out of a phone book that would have probably been better than either of them.
The ONE thing Trump had going for him is ZERO experience in politics other than bribing politicians from both branches of the ruling party to give him what he wants.
-
There's several other NeverTrumps that could use it too - might get a group rate?
@alicewonders
LOL! It does seem like some of the mental midgets that got banned from FR brought FR over here with them,doesn't it? Most specifically,the Clique Concept from High School.
-
She was losing in polling against "Generic Republican" since the beginning. Trump is a generic Republican. I do not think there was any opportunity for her to win under any circumstances.
People have, will and will always hate her.
@Frank Cannon
Well,sane people with the ability to think,anyhow. The traditional Dim Plantation voter will ALWAYS vote Dim.
-
I just want to point out that @alicewonders and @flowers were both good people before they became angry, bitter trumpers.
I miss the people they used to be. I LIKED those people. They could think. They could carry on conversations. They had reasonable positions on issues. They could disagree without hating you.
No more.
Sad....... ****sheep****
@musiclady
Are you POSITIVE it is "them"?
-
She didn't seem to be in the best of health.
She really didn't hold many campaign rallies, it was a bit half-----.
@TomSea
I suspect you are right about this. She didn't campaign more because she thought she had it in the bag as much as she didn't campaign more because she was physically and mentally unable to campaign more. There is a limit to how many times someone her age and state of health can be pumped up with injections and trotted out before an audience before things start to rapidly come apart. As witnessed when he had to have help walking and then collapsed trying to get into the van after one appearance.
If she had more of those spasms and collapses in front of tv cameras,even die-hard Dims would have been questioning her ability to run the country.
Her campaign staff were in a damned if they do/damned if they don't position.
They didn't worry about how she could manage AFTER the election because they all knew it would be Bubba Bill and the bankers running things anyway.
-
My opinion? You lost - America won - she lives to fight another day.
As long as you insist on calling people "losers" that glorious day of unification will never happen. If I didn't know better, I'd think some people want a permanent split.
-
Makes me wonder if Trump was in support of the algor recount fiasco in 2000? He was a Dem then, wasn't he? And a good buddy of Clinton......
@musiclady
Trump has never been a good friend of anyone but the guy looking at him in the mirror.
-
Whatever. At least I know it's rude to shout in ALL CAPS, and that shouting in ALL CAPS is a pretty good indicator of who the angry hater is.
@Oceander
"Angry hater"???
ROFLMAO! Is that you,Oprah? Care to share anymore Dim code phrases with us?
-
@musiclady
Trump has never been a good friend of anyone but the guy looking at him in the mirror.
/snicker
-
I see shades of JimRob in that reply. Am I alone?
@Weird Tolkienish Figure @Oceander
Nope. Oceander told me something along the line of "too bad this isn't FR or you would already be banned" earlier this morning when I busted in her/him/whatever whining about Bubbette! winning the popular vote and asked if she/he/sheit thinks America is a democracy or not. Never did get a straight out "yes" or "no" answer on that one.
-
@Oceander
"Angry hater"???
ROFLMAO! Is that you,Oprah? Care to share anymore Dim code phrases with us?
That'd be you, too.
-
As long as you insist on calling people "losers" that glorious day of unification will never happen. If I didn't know better, I'd think some people want a permanent split.
I don't mind being a loser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuL8g2Szse0
-
I find there is a disconnect in that paragraph, alice.
But, that's just me.
The thing that bugs me about that soliloquy from Alice is she doesn't seem to appreciate if her guy wins, we all win. Win-win is the goal, not she wins, everybody else loses.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure @Oceander
Nope. Oceander told me something along the line of "too bad this isn't FR or you would already be banned" earlier this morning when I busted in her/him/whatever whining about Bubbette! winning the popular vote and asked if she/he/sheit thinks America is a democracy or not. Never did get a straight out "yes" or "no" answer on that one.
@sneakypete
And now you've devolved to simply lying about me and what I've posted. I have never said anything about how you're lucky this isn't TOS or you would have been banned already - I do not and never have supported banning (unlike Trumpists). And I have already stated that I do not believe the US is a direct democracy: you're just too much in love with your own prejudices to both reading what other people actually post.
What I have said repeatedly - and the reason for my statement in my signature line - is that Trumpists like you had better be damned glad the US is not a direct democracy because if it were they would have lost.
Try getting reality straight sometime; you might enjoy it.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
He beat everyone for one reason. He was the only authentic anti-establishment candidate. All the other major candidate were owned by Marxist globalists with the possible exception of Ted Cruz. Noticed I said "possible", lots of evidence points to Cruz being a globalist too. The voters have had it with globalism, open borders and one way trade deals. The corrupt DC establishment is the disease and Trump is the cure.
Every other candidate running was more of the same.
@Right_in_Virginia
FWIW,I tend to THINK that Cruz HAS to dance right up to the Globalist Line in order to remain a mainstream alleged Republican candidate with any influence. I THINK that if he were free to express his own opinions he would be much more conservative than he appears to be.
Which is kind of why Trump won the primary. IMO,he was in the running for the ego boost and had nothing to lose,so he didn't HAVE to suck up to anybody. Then he actually won the damn thing and suddenly had to start taking it seriously.
I am HOPING that a lot of what we see as Trump sucking up the GOP establishment now is merely him "playing" them until after he has his cabinet picked and is sworn in. IF this is what he is doing,it is,IMHO, a VERY smart move because it gives him time to organize and actually be sworn in before he has to start putting out fires in his backfield. By then he will be in a position to punish those who try to harm him and reward those who want to work with him,and it will be too late to sabotage his cabinet and his agenda.
I may well be 180 degrees off,but I hope I'm not,and it doesn't cost anything to hope. Especially since there is nothing else we can do at this point.
-
:silly:
Boy are you ever brainwashed.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
Somebody is,anyway.
Since you seem to be absolutely certain you know it all,how about tell us what you are going to do to change things to make America "America" again?
-
I agree. Mr. Trump's election is now in the history books. Those who supported him won and those who did not were disappointed. Fairly straightforward, isn't it?
But with winning comes responsibility to deliver.
@Lando Lincoln
Very true,but what I am seeing more than anything else is the "anti-Trump at all costs,even if it means electing Hillary!" crowd still foaming at the mouth and getting wood from accusing Trump of "breaking the faith " by "doing this!" or "NOT doing THAT!".
Seems like SOME of these people would realize he hasn't even been sworn in yet,and has no more authority to "Do THIS!" or "NOT do THAT!" than you and I have.
How about we let him get sworn in first and then give him 60 to 90 days to settle in and establish a pattern,and THEN go after him for the things he as ACTUALLY DONE WRONG?
BTW,Lando,NOT saying you are one of these people. Your post just seemed to be a good one to partially quote and add these comments to.
-
@Lando Lincoln
Very true,but what I am seeing more than anything else is the "anti-Trump at all costs,even if it means electing Hillary!" crowd still foaming at the mouth and getting wood from accusing Trump of "breaking the faith " by "doing this!" or "NOT doing THAT!".
Seems like SOME of these people would realize he hasn't even been sworn in yet,and has no more authority to "Do THIS!" or "NOT do THAT!" than you and I have.
How about we let him get sworn in first and then give him 60 to 90 days to settle in and establish a pattern,and THEN go after him for the things he as ACTUALLY DONE WRONG?
BTW,Lando,NOT saying you are one of these people. Your post just seemed to be a good one to partially quote and add these comments to.
The problem I see with this is the folks who are long-time Trump supporters are calling everybody who's not "on their side" losers and Never Trumps, and that smears a lot of people in the middle who went through this whole election without taking a side. The wait-and-see people.
Stop calling them losers and things will brighten up considerably.
-
@TomSea
I suspect you are right about this. She didn't campaign more because she thought she had it in the bag as much as she didn't campaign more because she was physically and mentally unable to campaign more.
I think this is part of why Clinton didn't campaign more @sneakypete But, she also didn't appear on talk shows (even the friendly ones) or talk to the press (again, even the friendly members). This tells me their internal polling showed a drop in her favorability/approval ratings with each public exposure. She had to rely on the media and surrogates to campaign for her because she was her own worst political enemy.
-
@Frank Cannon
Well,sane people with the ability to think,anyhow. The traditional Dim Plantation voter will ALWAYS vote Dim.
They may always vote Rat, but they may not always vote which is what happened this election. She couldn't get her people to the polls because they didn't like her.
-
@sneakypete
And now you've devolved to simply lying about me and what I've posted. I have never said anything about how you're lucky this isn't TOS or you would have been banned already - I do not and never have supported banning (unlike Trumpists).
That's interesting, because I remember it happening. SP went off on you about your signature and you guys went back and forth and back and forth on a thread that had nothing to do with the EC/etc. And I'm pretty sure "lucky", "TOS" and "banned" are all actually direct quotes.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure @Oceander
Nope. Oceander told me something along the line of "too bad this isn't FR or you would already be banned" earlier this morning when I busted in her/him/whatever whining about Bubbette! winning the popular vote and asked if she/he/sheit thinks America is a democracy or not. Never did get a straight out "yes" or "no" answer on that one.
@sneakypete @Oceander @Weird Tolkienish Figure
I can find no such post by Oceander.
-
@geronl
Yup. I think I even detected a hint of that in the article. The title alone is a strong hint,even if they didn't want to come right out and say it.
...
I agree, but I think it was more than a hint.
-
@alicewonders
LOL! It does seem like some of the mental midgets that got banned from FR brought FR over here with them,doesn't it? Most specifically,the Clique Concept from High School.
You still posting over there, @sneakypete?
-
I'll agree with this. My trump wishes:
1) enough with the economic populism
2) be more disciplined. No more gaffes. Stop saying stupid things on twitter
3) get rid of the alt-right. Get rid of crazies like Flynn's idiot son
4) my biggest worry: don't turn the federal government into a kleptocracy. I don't want to have to continuously defend this garbage for the next 4 years.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
I am in agreement with all of the above but number 2,and have only recently came to the conclusion that what I had thought was an incredibly stupid thing to do was actually a major stroke of genius. He uses twitter to get his message out to the public without having to filter it through any of the news media. This allows his message to go out without any "spin" being applied to it,and people get to read the undiluted message.
Most importantly,I have no doubt those messages are targeted to a specific audience,letting them know that if they try to stab him in the back on any issue they want to "manage" he will go public and name names on who was being obstructionist.
He's sending the message that politics are no longer "kiss,kiss,we will make it up to you next time if you don't hurt me this time" business as usual. He is NOT a career politician,so he feels no obligation to play the game by traditional career political rules.
Sometimes letting your opponents think you are a little bit nuts is the best negotiating strategy.
AND.....,he is doing it all in such a way that Joe and Joan Sixpack that don't normally read political opinions in newspapers or political news stories hear about it. EVERYBODY can go on twitter and read it for themselves without any filters,any editing,or anyone else to tell them what they should think about it. By doing this,he is going directly to the public for support.
I suspect there are other advantages also,but since I don't twitter and this whole thing is new to me,it's all still a little murky and in the background.
-
That's interesting, because I remember it happening. SP went off on you about your signature and you guys went back and forth and back and forth on a thread that had nothing to do with the EC/etc. And I'm pretty sure "lucky", "TOS" and "banned" are all actually direct quotes.
Okay, correction.
It wasn't Oceander, the word "lucky" wasn't used, and it was FR not TOS.
The thread was about natural gas.
-
@Lando Lincoln
Very true,but what I am seeing more than anything else is the "anti-Trump at all costs,even if it means electing Hillary!" crowd still foaming at the mouth and getting wood from accusing Trump of "breaking the faith " by "doing this!" or "NOT doing THAT!".
Seems like SOME of these people would realize he hasn't even been sworn in yet,and has no more authority to "Do THIS!" or "NOT do THAT!" than you and I have.
How about we let him get sworn in first and then give him 60 to 90 days to settle in and establish a pattern,and THEN go after him for the things he as ACTUALLY DONE WRONG?
BTW,Lando,NOT saying you are one of these people. Your post just seemed to be a good one to partially quote and add these comments to.
All good Pete. Add comments as you see fit!
-
That's interesting, because I remember it happening. SP went off on you about your signature and you guys went back and forth and back and forth on a thread that had nothing to do with the EC/etc. And I'm pretty sure "lucky", "TOS" and "banned" are all actually direct quotes.
If you have it, post a link to it.
The only people here who are lucky this place isn't TOS are people like me because if it were I would have been banned a long time ago; that's what Trumpists do.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
FWIW,I tend to THINK that Cruz HAS to dance right up to the Globalist Line in order to remain a mainstream alleged Republican candidate with any influence. I THINK that if he were free to express his own opinions he would be much more conservative than he appears to be.
There's probably some truth to this @sneakypete He did gain his political stripes working with the Bush folks, so he may see globalism as his political lifeline. Hopefully, he'll cut this line.
Which is kind of why Trump won the primary. IMO,he was in the running for the ego boost and had nothing to lose,so he didn't HAVE to suck up to anybody. Then he actually won the damn thing and suddenly had to start taking it seriously.
Hmmm... I'm having a hard time buying this. First, I think his motivation to run really was his distress at seeing where the country he loves was heading. He turned his personal world inside out to do this--all the others had a run for the Presidency on their Bucket List. The one thing Trump doesn't do is play to lose or play just to play, so from the start I believe he was in it to win it. I think the reaction from the people gave him confidence that he could win ... and the rest, as they say, is history. ^-^
I am HOPING that a lot of what we see as Trump sucking up the GOP establishment now is merely him "playing" them until after he has his cabinet picked and is sworn in. IF this is what he is doing,it is,IMHO, a VERY smart move because it gives him time to organize and actually be sworn in before he has to start putting out fires in his backfield. By then he will be in a position to punish those who try to harm him and reward those who want to work with him,and it will be too late to sabotage his cabinet and his agenda.I may well be 180 degrees off,but I hope I'm not,and it doesn't cost anything to hope. Especially since there is nothing else we can do at this point.
I think he is trying to mend fences ... but he is a realist and the Preibus Chief of Staff appointment points to Trump knowing he's going to get pushback from some members of his own party. Preibus was very helpful putting out fires and clearing marbles on the floor during the campaign. I'm hoping he will serve as well in this area as part of the administration.
I also think the thank you tour serves two purposes. First, I think this is a sincere thank you tour ... Trump wasn't shy about asking for votes during his rallies and the people came through--especially in the "battleground states". Last night, for example, the weather was so bad his plane had to land about 2 hours by car from the rally site in NC. He apologized for being late (over two hours) and explained that many wanted him to reschedule the event. Trump simply told them to get a car and they drove the two hours to the rally. He said he didn't want to disappoint all those waiting.
Additionally, this tour -- along with other events during the transition --- give him strong momentum moving into the job of POTUS. Trump will have the wind at his back --- and Congress critters will notice, including Democrats from districts that voted for Trump. I think he starts his Presidency hitting the ground running.
So, in a nutshell, there's ample reason to be hopeful come January 20. :beer:
-
If you have it, post a link to it.
The only people here who are lucky this place isn't TOS are people like me because if it were I would have been banned a long time ago; that's what Trumpists do.
There is actually tangible evidence of that. Just look at the carnage at FR this election cycle. The place is now an echo chamber for stupidity.
-
... Usually, the "mandate" issue is important because a President faces at least one house of Congress controlled by the other party, and so uses the "mandate" argument to pressure potential swing votes in Congress. But that's not the case here because the GOP controls both houses. He won, and now has to work with the GOP Congress. Whether we call his victory great or small makes no difference."
Good point!
"In terms of the pure politics of it, I do think it's noteworthy that he won while being so heavily outspent, and by largely bypassing the media filter to get his message out. It's certainly interesting for political scientists."
While most of us seemed to have ignored this aspect of his victory,it is becoming more obvious every day the media is obsessed with it. EVERY DAY we see and hear media reports about "false reporting/false news stories",as they make a major effort to regain what little credibility they had prior to this election. They ALL dropped the ball on their predictions and it made them not only look like fools,but like the Dim cheerleaders they are. People that are casual about politics are suddenly opening their eyes to the FACT that the media sometimes tell us what THEY want us to hear,which may not be the same thing as the truth.
Can any of you EVER remember hearing the media whining about false news stories before Trump won the election? I sure can't. Oh,ABC,CBS,etc,etc,etc would report on things like NBC's bogus "exploding GM gas tank" stories having been proved to have been false,or CNN's "Operation Tailwind" being totally bogus,but it would be a One Day Event and never heard of again. Even then,a VERY mild approach was taken to the reporting because they all knew that THEY could be the ones under the microscope next if they were unlucky. I will never believe that the reporters from the competitors didn't know from Day One that NBC and CNN were telling lies,but kept quiet about it because of "professional courtesy" until it was made public by some other source and they could no longer deny it.
I personally think there may also be an element of professional jealousy involved. If someone is going to make false news reports,they think it should be THEM. After all,that is the sole reason many of them were created and why they exist today.
-
@musiclady
Are you POSITIVE it is "them"?
Yes.
Absolutely.
-
Okay, correction.
It wasn't Oceander, the word "lucky" wasn't used, and it was FR not TOS.
The thread was about natural gas.
Ahhh.......
-
See this is a perfect example of what rankles Trump supporters. People with (forgive me) big mouths make horribly harsh statements and lump all Trump supporters (even reluctant ones like most conservatives) into categories then deny that they insulted anyone when they have actually insulted EVERYONE (who disagrees with them about Trump).
I mean, what the above poster has done is to essentially say that it is her opinion that effectively all Trump supporters are loathsome, stupid, grossly-irresponsible lowlifes, then in the same breath denies that she has insulted anyone.
"You cannot be for Me and against Me." - Some Immortal Guy (describing the impossibility of both being for morality and against it in some sort of weird "quantum state").
I doubt the principle in my post will respond directly because she stated awhile back (when I had the insane gall to suggest that she was not behaving like a lady at all) that she was putting me on ignore. That may insulate her personally from reading what I believe to be the truth about her and others similar to her, but it does not prevent me from presenting my opinion for others to consider.
I would have bygones be bygones and proceed into the future as friends with everyone on this forum and/or who self-identify as a conservative. But that desire is tempered by the reality that it takes two to make peace and only one to make war.
How did the post by @musiclady apply to anyone but alicewonders?
This sounds more like someone subconsciously taking a post to another and applying it to themselves. That tends to happen when the reader thinks that the post is actually applicable to oneself.
-
@geronl
I'm hoping this massive loss by Bubbette! is enough to keep Bubbette! Jr out of office. I have no doubt her family money and her husband's family money can buy her a congressional seat somewhere,but I am hoping that after this the 'murikan publick voters that vote Dim will even be sick of hearing the Clinton name on a national ticket.
I would hope so, but it's not possible to underestimate people any more.
-
I would hope so, but it's not possible to over- underestimate people any more.
-
The thing that bugs me about that soliloquy from Alice is she doesn't seem to appreciate if her guy wins, we all win. Win-win is the goal, not she wins, everybody else loses.
Actually, @Cyber Liberty, I think @alicewonders absolutely appreciates Trump's win is a win for all--the entire nation.
I think she's simply saying it's time for those who did not support Trump's candidacy to let go of old battles, stop the knee-jerk reactions to everything Trump--including to those who did support his candidacy--and come onboard the Trump Train.
Trump's victory is a win-win for all--and we'll get more accomplished for the good of this nation pooling our energies rather than wasting this resource on battles now over.
-
There's probably some truth to this @sneakypete He did gain his political stripes working with the Bush folks, so he may see globalism as his political lifeline. Hopefully, he'll cut this line.
Hmmm... I'm having a hard time buying this. First, I think his motivation to run really was his distress at seeing where the country he loves was heading. He turned his personal world inside out to do this--all the others had a run for the Presidency on their Bucket List. The one thing Trump doesn't do is play to lose or play just to play, so from the start I believe he was in it to win it. I think the reaction from the people gave him confidence that he could win ... and the rest, as they say, is history. ^-^
I think he is trying to mend fences ... but he is a realist and the Preibus Chief of Staff appointment points to Trump knowing he's going to get pushback from some members of his own party. Preibus was very helpful putting out fires and clearing marbles on the floor during the campaign. I'm hoping he will serve as well in this area as part of the administration.
I also think the thank you tour serves two purposes. First, I think this is a sincere thank you tour ... Trump wasn't shy about asking for votes during his rallies and the people came through--especially in the "battleground states". Last night, for example, the weather was so bad his plane had to land about 2 hours by car from the rally site in NC. He apologized for being late (over two hours) and explained that many wanted him to reschedule the event. Trump simply told them to get a car and they drove the two hours to the rally. He said he didn't want to disappoint all those waiting.
Additionally, this tour -- along with other events during the transition --- give him strong momentum moving into the job of POTUS. Trump will have the wind at his back --- and Congress critters will notice, including Democrats from districts that voted for Trump. I think he starts his Presidency hitting the ground running.
So, in a nutshell, there's ample reason to be hopeful come January 20. :beer:
/snicker
There is hope only to the extent that he (a) repudiates the toxic socialist economic populism and anti-immigrant xenophobia he espoused during the campaign, (b) drops the crony capitalism he's currently espousing, and (c) starts to espouse policies that are at least in the same universe that Reaganite republicans inhabit. In short, to the extent that he repudiates you and the other Trumpists (whether you realize it or not).
So far, he's doing (a) but not (b) or (c), so there isn't much real hope that things will really change Jan. 20th. Especially now that we know he consults routinely with Obama, is cozying up to Al Gore on climate matters and Rahm Emanuel on God knows what.
-
Yes.
Absolutely.
Hmmm.. maybe some deeper self-reflection would be helpful here @musiclady :pondering:
-
Actually, @Cyber Liberty, I think @alicewonders absolutely appreciates Trump's win is a win for all--the entire nation.
I think she's simply saying it's time for those who did not support Trump's candidacy to let go of old battles, stop the knee-jerk reactions to everything Trump--including to those who did support his candidacy--and come onboard the Trump Train.
Trump's victory is a win-win for all--and we'll get more accomplished for the good of this nation pooling our energies rather than wasting this resource on battles now over.
Oh, good. It's good to know that in your opinion there are no losers here.
-
Not wanting to fight with you or anyone else here musiclady, but I have bolded some of your remarks above. The ones where you deny targeting me with your inappropriate insults about Trump supporters making Trump "their god". Anyone can read them for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions as to whether you were referring to me or not. I will repost your earlier quote in full:
As anyone can see - your remarks here on this thread absolutely are referring to me and @flowers , a person would have to be willfully blind not to see that. And yet, in your last post here - you are attempting to deny that. ???
Lastly, I am NOT in hiding. I don't post here very often anymore because this is largely an anti-Trump site and I am very much pro-Trump. This is not a very enjoyable site for me anymore - it used to be my internet home, a place I posted in every day and where I made many friends and enjoyed a nice camaraderie. Now....not so much. I'm not into being insulted if I can avoid it.
And don't worry about me - dear person who was once a friend of mine, but decided to abandon our friendship because of my political support for someone you don't like - I'm living the life I choose, a happy, content and peaceful life! I have so much thankfulness in my heart because I know that America will not be controlled by evil social engineers much longer. I won't waste my days defending my beliefs to people that claim to know what is in my heart and who I worship. Life is too short to spend time doing such things.
Not in hiding in the least! Enjoying days of serenity and astonishment at the glory of God - and that's God with a capital "G". Deny it if you want, it's all here in black and white for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions.
Last point, you said, "If I had a nickel for every time a Trump lover called me "sanctimonious," "judgmental," "arrogant," or the like, I'd be the richest woman on earth." - have you ever stopped to wonder why that is so? Why so many people have said those things about you? Maybe the next time you are on your knees, humbling yourself before God (the same God I worship), you might honestly and sincerely ask why people keep saying these things to you. I hope you ask this with a sincere heart - I know that if you do, you will come to a moment of self-enlightenment.
None of us are perfect by any means - believe me, I've had to have that same conversation with God, hopefully we all have. It is how we grow as Christians.
Shalom.
Do you even know how to convince others of the benefits of Trump?
You take his positions and argue how they will actually be beneficial! That's how.
Why haven't you tried that? (And no, you don't get to claim you did, as anyone can see any poster's entire posting history... and you don't have that under your posting belt.)
Well?
-
Do you even know how to convince others of the benefits of Trump?
You take his positions and argue how they will actually be beneficial! That's how.
Why haven't you tried that? (And no, you don't get to claim you did, as anyone can see any poster's entire posting history... and you don't have that under your posting belt.)
Well?
:thumbsup3: :thumbsup3:
-
/snicker
Relax, @Oceander I do not expect you to give Trump a fair shake or get onboard the Trump Train and join the MAGA mission.
Maybe I'll just starting adding "I know you disagree @Oceander " to each of my posts and save you the time you take to respond.
-
You still posting over there, @sneakypete?
No. I quit and told Jim Rob/Jim Bob to remove me as a member when they were all cheerleading for Boy Jorge's invasion of Iraq. I had been saying I was banned by him for my anti-Boy Jorge and anti-Iraq War posts and for telling him his head was a quart low,but somebody reminded me that I had resigned. It was only after I resigned that he banned me from posting or receiving FR Mails.
A natural mistake on my part because he had banned me a couple of times before.
I still have trouble believing so many people over there supported that insane war.
-
Not wanting to fight with you or anyone else here musiclady, but I have bolded some of your remarks above. The ones where you deny targeting me with your inappropriate insults about Trump supporters making Trump "their god". Anyone can read them for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions as to whether you were referring to me or not. I will repost your earlier quote in full:
As anyone can see - your remarks here on this thread absolutely are referring to me and @flowers , a person would have to be willfully blind not to see that. And yet, in your last post here - you are attempting to deny that. ???
Lastly, I am NOT in hiding. I don't post here very often anymore because this is largely an anti-Trump site and I am very much pro-Trump. This is not a very enjoyable site for me anymore - it used to be my internet home, a place I posted in every day and where I made many friends and enjoyed a nice camaraderie. Now....not so much. I'm not into being insulted if I can avoid it.
And don't worry about me - dear person who was once a friend of mine, but decided to abandon our friendship because of my political support for someone you don't like - I'm living the life I choose, a happy, content and peaceful life! I have so much thankfulness in my heart because I know that America will not be controlled by evil social engineers much longer. I won't waste my days defending my beliefs to people that claim to know what is in my heart and who I worship. Life is too short to spend time doing such things.
Not in hiding in the least! Enjoying days of serenity and astonishment at the glory of God - and that's God with a capital "G". Deny it if you want, it's all here in black and white for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions.
Last point, you said, "If I had a nickel for every time a Trump lover called me "sanctimonious," "judgmental," "arrogant," or the like, I'd be the richest woman on earth." - have you ever stopped to wonder why that is so? Why so many people have said those things about you? Maybe the next time you are on your knees, humbling yourself before God (the same God I worship), you might honestly and sincerely ask why people keep saying these things to you. I hope you ask this with a sincere heart - I know that if you do, you will come to a moment of self-enlightenment.
None of us are perfect by any means - believe me, I've had to have that same conversation with God, hopefully we all have. It is how we grow as Christians.
Shalom.
What I said specifically about you on this thread was that you used to be someone I could discuss issues with, with whom I had a great deal of agreement. Then came Trump and you changed. Everything said against Trump, you interpreted as an insult to you personally. I tried over and over to clarify, but you wanted to be offended that I was including you and insulting you, when I wasn't. Ever.
That's clearly what you have done here in your use of the word "targeting."
What I am actually doing is expressing sorrow that an evil man like Donald Trump came between our internet relationship and changed you into someone who could not discuss things any more.
I have not "wondered" why people have called me "sanctimonious." It is a typical verbal barb coming from people who are stung by the fact that they have changed ethical positions to support a politician who does not believe what they believe. I refused to make excuses for Trump's misogyny and debasing of women, his absolutely amoral lifestyle, his betraying of his wives, his rampant, unrepentant adultery, and that bugs people who have decided to ignore that for some other cause.
I have said repeatedly that character matters, and those of you who no longer believe that, or who never believed that are mad at me and call me stupid names.
So be it.
That said, I miss being able to talk with you, @alicewonders . I hope your devotion to Trump at some point becomes more realistic as to how deeply flawed he is, and that you realize that those of us opposing him are not arrogant, but rather expressing a humility that says that God's laws supercede our own political goals and heroes. It is God's law that determines the values that many of us hold, not political expedience.
I just pray that this country can survive the next four years, and that the God we BOTH worship will have mercy on a nation who has chosen such a faulty, arrogant unrepentant sinner to "lead" us.
-
Do you even know how to convince others of the benefits of Trump?
You take his positions and argue how they will actually be beneficial! That's how.
Why haven't you tried that? (And no, you don't get to claim you did, as anyone can see any poster's entire posting history... and you don't have that under your posting belt.)
Well?
That's a strawman argument @HonestJohn . But you know that.
@alicewonders has been among the many of us who have answered this bogus question many times throughout the primaries and the general election. You've proven you have no interest in doing anything other than diminishing both the President-elect and his supporters.
If you want to keep your game alive, you'll need to come up with a better angle than this strawman 888blackhat
-
That's a strawman argument @HonestJohn . But you know that.
@alicewonders has been among the many of us who have answered this bogus question many times throughout the primaries and the general election. You've proven you have no interest in doing anything other than diminishing both the President-elect and his supporters.
If you want to keep your game alive, you'll need to come up with a better angle than this strawman 888blackhat
How is that a strawman?
-
Mr. Trump has his work cut out for himself - not the least of which are steep learning curves on multiple fronts. I pray he does well. But here is the thing whether you like him or not, support him or not:
By the mid-term election cycle of 2018, a good many of us will have changed our minds about the guy. I know which way I hope that judgment tilts two years hence.
Meanwhile, I will comment for ill or for good based on what I observe, believe, and know.
Today's discussion? Too early. Too old. Too tedious. Too petty.
The guy won. He will be my President. Yours too. I wish we could see it.
-
How is that a strawman?
Because she says it is. Just like a Trumpist. Or humpty-dumpty.
-
That's a strawman argument @HonestJohn . But you know that.
@alicewonders has been among the many of us who have answered this bogus question many times throughout the primaries and the general election. You've proven you have no interest in doing anything other than diminishing both the President-elect and his supporters.
If you want to keep your game alive, you'll need to come up with a better angle than this strawman 888blackhat
Actually, I looked through her posts for the last six months. There was no explanations as to Trump positions and why/how they would be beneficial to America.
Now, what does your post make you?
-
Mr. Trump has his work cut out for himself - not the least of which are steep learning curves on multiple fronts. I pray he does well. But here is the thing whether you like him or not, support him or not:
By the mid-term election cycle of 2018, a good many of us will have changed our minds about the guy. I know which way I hope that judgment tilts two years hence.
Meanwhile, I will comment for ill or for good based on what I observe, believe, and know.
Today's discussion? Too early. Too old. Too tedious. Too petty.
The guy won. He will be my President. Yours too. I wish we could see it.
Not mine. I may have to suffer him, but I don't own him.
-
Alternate reality. She blew the only chance she had to win: against Trump. She would have had a guaranteed loss against almost any of the other GOP primary participants.
At this point in considering what has happened I'm not so sure. Regardless of what Hillary does she is never held accountable yet, she won the popular vote. She's an old politician with deep pockets and deep political connections; both foreign and domestic. With those connections comes power. It is that political power and her money that almost won her the election. The only one on the GOP side that had pockets deep enough and connections deep enough to beat her was Trump. IWith that being said, I think it is absolutely astonishing that Cruz made it as far as he did.
-
Not mine. I may have to suffer him, but I don't own him.
True enough.
-
Mr. Trump has his work cut out for himself - not the least of which are steep learning curves on multiple fronts. I pray he does well. But here is the thing whether you like him or not, support him or not:
By the mid-term election cycle of 2018, a good many of us will have changed our minds about the guy. I know which way I hope that judgment tilts two years hence.
Meanwhile, I will comment for ill or for good based on what I observe, believe, and know.
Today's discussion? Too early. Too old. Too tedious. Too petty.
The guy won. He will be my President. Yours too. I wish we could see it.
Well said, Lando!
-
I have a problem discussing another member when they are not logged in to speak for them self...please remember that.
-
I have a problem discussing another member when they are not logged in to speak for them self...please remember that.
General agreement myst. I love your avatar, btw. It is my reminder...
-
Actually, @Cyber Liberty, I think @alicewonders absolutely appreciates Trump's win is a win for all--the entire nation.
I think she's simply saying it's time for those who did not support Trump's candidacy to let go of old battles, stop the knee-jerk reactions to everything Trump--including to those who did support his candidacy--and come onboard the Trump Train.
Trump's victory is a win-win for all--and we'll get more accomplished for the good of this nation pooling our energies rather than wasting this resource on battles now over.
She (and others) are smearing people who are not Never Trumps by calling them losers.
-
Mr. Trump has his work cut out for himself - not the least of which are steep learning curves on multiple fronts. I pray he does well. But here is the thing whether you like him or not, support him or not:
By the mid-term election cycle of 2018, a good many of us will have changed our minds about the guy. I know which way I hope that judgment tilts two years hence.
Meanwhile, I will comment for ill or for good based on what I observe, believe, and know.
Today's discussion? Too early. Too old. Too tedious. Too petty.
The guy won. He will be my President. Yours too. I wish we could see it.
Bill Clinton was my President too, and I feel pretty much the same way now that I did in 1992.
I could not support a man completely devoid of character at all levels....... either Bill or Donald.
He may do a thing or two that I like, but my fundamental disagreement with who he is as a person will never change because it's what I've believed my entire life.
-
She (and others) are smearing people who are not Never Trumps by calling them losers.
The problem with calling people who opposed Trump "losers" is that it carries with it the implication that any of us were for Hillary, and that had she won we would be "winners."
It's part of the repeated lie about non-Trumpers that they just won't let go.
We are not "losers," because neither candidate deserved our support nor our desire to have "win."
Of course Trump loyalists will never admit that they are perpetuating a lie by calling us "losers," but that is exactly what they are doing.
And you are right. It is a nasty smear.
@alicewonders
-
I have a suggestion: how about a separate place in the Members' Only section for these seemingly never ending pi$$ing contests between assorted characters. We could call it The Urinal, and the players could go at it ad nauseum.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on... ****slapping
-
I have a suggestion: how about a separate place in the Members' Only section for these seemingly never ending pi$$ing contests between assorted characters. We could call it The Urinal, and the players could go at it ad nauseum.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on... ****slapping
Not necessarily a bad idea...
-
Not mine. I may have to suffer him, but I don't own him.
I will always carry with me the satisfaction that I can tell my daughters and granddaughters that I did not vote for a man who thinks of them as no more than a piece of meat, or property.
I will go to my grave happily knowing that I did not ever vote for a liberal, or a moral degenerate.
Trump is now the President-elect of the United States, but I bear no responsibility in whatever disaster awaits us because of his mental and emotional disease.
If he accidentally does something that isn't disastrous, I won't be able to take credit for it, but I'm OK with that.
@Oceander
-
How did the post by @musiclady apply to anyone but alicewonders?
This sounds more like someone subconsciously taking a post to another and applying it to themselves. That tends to happen when the reader thinks that the post is actually applicable to oneself.
As I happened to read LFL's post in your quote, I am amused that he is still smarting from my putting him on Ignore and is projecting all sorts of evil on me because his poor widdew feelings got hurt after he went bonkers in a post.
That said, he's the only trumpist I've had to put on Ignore since the election, while I've taken many off.
Several may never come off, and LfL is most likely one of them. I now see that he's still not worth the read.
-
Bill Clinton was my President too, and I feel pretty much the same way now that I did in 1992.
I could not support a man completely devoid of character at all levels....... either Bill or Donald.
He may do a thing or two that I like, but my fundamental disagreement with who he is as a person will never change because it's what I've believed my entire life.
You are right m'lady, of course. Also, I admire your principled opinion of him. I personally have thought of him as a moral reprobate. But, I will try to judge him through one lens now.
For me, at this time, I am left to judge him as President of the United States over the coming years. That is how I will proceed (for now).
-
I have a suggestion: how about a separate place in the Members' Only section for these seemingly never ending pi$$ing contests between assorted characters. We could call it The Urinal, and the players could go at it ad nauseum.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on... ****slapping
You mean have a special place for @musiclady?
Sounds like a good idea to me!
-
You are right m'lady, of course. Also, I admire your principled opinion of him. I personally have thought of him as a moral reprobate. But, I will try to judge him through one lens now.
For me, at this time, I am left to judge him as President of the United States over the coming years. That is how I will proceed (for now).
Absolutely fine. We all have different ways of dealing with things, and yours is a viable option.
I plan on being pleased if I am shocked to see that he does one principled thing in the next four years. It doesn't change who he is as a person, as it didn't Bill Clinton, but he did do a thing or two that I agreed with.
Unfortunately, that's the most I can hope for in the coming years.
-
You mean have a special place for @musiclady?
Sounds like a good idea to me!
Hmmmm............ that sounds like a comment for one who likes to engage in pissing contests, alice. (I personally have had enough of that in the past few hours on this thread, I hate petty quarrels that never end. This one is over).
SO.......FYI, in the future, I'm not going to post either to or about you again, as I see that my doing so is an irritant, and now that you're out in the open, you're going to take offense no matter what I say. I would recommend that you do the same with me, since you don't seem to be able to deal with me. ("Ignore" is a great feature, since I'm so disgusting to you. Perhaps you should put me there. I'll just try to remember what a great person you used to be, BT).
And btw, the only "losers" are Hillary lackeys, and there aren't any here, so you may want to retire that deceitful smear.
So, cheers! :seeya:
-
The point has been made and remade. Let's move on.
Remember, the topic is "Hillary Clinton blew the most winnable election in modern American history." and, not "nany, nany, boo, boo."
-
Hmmmm............ that sounds like a comment for one who likes to engage in pissing contests, alice. (I personally have had enough of that in the past few hours on this thread, I hate petty quarrels that never end. This one is over).
SO.......FYI, in the future, I'm not going to post either to or about you again, as I see that my doing so is an irritant, and now that you're out in the open, you're going to take offense no matter what I say. I would recommend that you do the same with me, since you don't seem to be able to deal with me. ("Ignore" is a great feature, since I'm so disgusting to you. Perhaps you should put me there. I'll just try to remember what a great person you used to be, BT).
And btw, the only "losers" are Hillary lackeys, and there aren't any here, so you may want to retire that deceitful smear.
So, cheers! :seeya:
Nice thing about a thread like this is you get to find out who your friends are(n't).
-
Again - let's move on.
-
Truth is, I am delighted the wooden stake has been pushed through the political heart of Hillary Clinton.
-
Truth is, I am delighted the wooden stake has been pushed through the political heart of Hillary Clinton.
Me too! I just hope it stays there. You know how vampires are.
-
Truth is, I am delighted the wooden stake has been pushed through the political heart of Hillary Clinton.
I was amazed at the absolute delight I felt on election night when the dreaded, vaunted Hillary LOST to a loser.
It was an odd feeling. I have been waiting for the destruction of the Clintons for decades, and it's hard to believe that it's actually happened.
Now, I hope she goes to jail where she belongs.
But of course, she won't............ **nononono*
-
Me too! I just hope it stays there. You know how vampires are.
Yeah....... but this one is old and decrepit, and reportedly has been crying in her beer for days.
Gonna be tough to resurrect ol' Hillary after this humiliating defeat.
-
Again - let's move on.
10-4, and Lando makes the best point right under the post I'm quoting here.
-
10-4, and Lando makes the best point right under the post I'm quoting here.
He usually does.
-
@sneakypete
And now you've devolved to simply lying about me and what I've posted.
@Oceander
If anyone here is a liar,it is you,and you are a liar at the professional level.
-
I will go to my grave happily knowing that I did not ever vote for a liberal, or a moral degenerate.
@Oceander
@musiclady
Did you or did you not vote for Boy Jorge Bush?
-
I was amazed at the absolute delight I felt on election night when the dreaded, vaunted Hillary LOST to a loser.
It was an odd feeling. I have been waiting for the destruction of the Clintons for decades, and it's hard to believe that it's actually happened.
@musiclady
Keep holding your breath for a while. It's not over until the corrupt fat female dies. Maybe not even then because she managed to produce a clone and that clone managed to marry into one of the wealthiest leftist families in the world. They can easily afford to buy her a congressional seat of her very own from petty cash.
-
@musiclady
Keep holding your breath for a while. It's not over until the corrupt fat female dies. Maybe not even then because she managed to produce a clone and that clone managed to marry into one of the wealthiest leftist families in the world. They can easily afford to buy her a congressional seat of her very own from petty cash.
As I said, it's hard to believe.
I'm not assuming anything about them. It's just that I have hope for the first time since 1992 that the Clintons are finally out of power.
-
@musiclady
Did you or did you not vote for Boy Jorge Bush?
I don't argue about Bush with people who have an irrational hatred for him.
I will discuss any subject with anyone who isn't blinded by rage.
That doesn't include you.
(But yes, I voted for him twice. End of my part of the discussion).
Now since the subject is Hillary, and we've been asked to stay on topic, will you oblige and do that?
-
As I said, it's hard to believe.
I'm not assuming anything about them. It's just that I have hope for the first time since 1992 that the Clintons are finally out of power.
:amen:
Let's take some peace for a little while and contemplate that.
-
@sneakypete
And now you've devolved to simply lying about me and what I've posted. I have never said anything about how you're lucky this isn't TOS or you would have been banned already - I do not and never have supported banning (unlike Trumpists). And I have already stated that I do not believe the US is a direct democracy: you're just too much in love with your own prejudices to both reading what other people actually post.
What I have said repeatedly - and the reason for my statement in my signature line - is that Trumpists like you had better be damned glad the US is not a direct democracy because if it were they would have lost.
Try getting reality straight sometime; you might enjoy it.
@Oceander
Ok,you were right about this and I was wrong. It was NOT you that wrote "If this was FR, you would be "banned"." It was someone else. I made the mistake because I was busy responding to several posts and got my attackers mixed up. I just found out today how to search for previous posts,so I will take more care in the future. That is NOT an excuse. I should have taken the time to go back and check before posting accusations,but regardless of the reasons,I didn't.
I can only offer my apologies for this mistake on my part.
-
:amen:
Let's take some peace for a little while and contemplate that.
That's what I'm doing CL!
And experiencing a little schadenfreude about the stories that Hillary is crying all the time and drinking too much. I know it's not nice, but somehow, seeing this evil woman in emotional pain is satisfying.....
-
He usually does.
Well... thanks.
-
Well... thanks.
The Mod is right, you know.....
You are a calming presence on this forum.
-
(But yes, I voted for him twice. End of my part of the discussion).
Now since the subject is Hillary, and we've been asked to stay on topic, will you oblige and do that?
@musiclady
Bush/Clinton,two peas in a pod,and business partners in corruption since the days when Poppy was President and Bubba was still in Arkansas with Bubbette! sitting on the Wal-Mart board.
You love Boy Jorge because he loves to thump his Bible and pretends to love America,and hate the Clinton's because they don't even bother to pretend to be religious. Take away the religious pose,and they are the same people.
-
He did gain his political stripes working with the Bush folks, so he may see globalism as his political lifeline. Hopefully, he'll cut this line.
@Right_in_Virginia why do you continue to push this falsehood? Especially in light of the fact that he actually did little work in the Bush administration and actually opposed them as the Solicitor General for the State of Texas.
Have you really gotten to the point where you believe propaganda more than facts?
-
That's a strawman argument @HonestJohn . But you know that.
@alicewonders has been among the many of us who have answered this bogus question many times throughout the primaries and the general election. You've proven you have no interest in doing anything other than diminishing both the President-elect and his supporters.
If you want to keep your game alive, you'll need to come up with a better angle than this strawman 888blackhat
No @HonestJohn posted a legitimate question.
DO you know how to sell people on the benefits of Trump? Do you know how to convince people who are on the fence or still convinced he's Hillary Clinton's bag man that he's the real deal?
-
@musiclady
Bush/Clinton,two peas in a pod,and business partners in corruption since the days when Poppy was President and Bubba was still in Arkansas with Bubbette! sitting on the Wal-Mart board.
You love Boy Jorge because he loves to thump his Bible and pretends to love America,and hate the Clinton's because they don't even bother to pretend to be religious. Take away the religious pose,and they are the same people.
Do you have trouble reading?
I said I didn't want to discuss anything about Bush with someone who abhors him and everyone in his family.
No matter how rational and sound my comments are, you will react with your typical nonsensical personal attacks.
(But I'll have to admit that your saying I didn't like Trump because I wanted to be in the "in crowd" made me laugh for several days. That is as opposite the truth as anything anyone has ever accused me of - I'm a music geek. I've never cared about being popular. But definitely "A" for creativity on it. Your imagination is awesome).
However, you get a "D-" for both logic and creativity on this emotional I-hate-all-Christians swill.
Again........ no Bush discussion with irrational people. Actually, he's quite irrelevant right now, so maybe you should spend your emotional energy on someone else more worthy of your ire.
-
:amen:
Let's take some peace for a little while and contemplate that.
Indeed. If only we could have had a glimpse into her private suite on election night. I don't feel morbid saying that.
-
Do you have trouble reading?
I said I didn't want to discuss anything about Bush with someone who abhors him and everyone in his family.
No matter how rational and sound my comments are, you will react with your typical nonsensical personal attacks.
@musiclady
Drunks don't want to be reminded they are drunks,either.
You know this down deep or you wouldn't be calling my exposing the truth about the Bush Crime Family as "personal attacks". You really do see yourself as a "family member",don't you?
Maybe you could try sticking your fingers in your ears and screming "neener,neener,neener!" at the top of your voice?
-
@musiclady
Drunks don't want to be reminded they are drunks,either.
You know this down deep or you wouldn't be calling my exposing the truth about the Bush Crime Family as "personal attacks". You really do see yourself as a "family member",don't you?
Maybe you could try sticking your fingers in your ears and screming "neener,neener,neener!" at the top of your voice?
LOL! Your very, very personal attack was on me for being so shallow that I only respect Bush because he's a Christian.
You've really got to get over this obsession, @sneakypete.
I'm getting embarrassed for you.
You're a smart guy.
Use your head.
You're never going to win an argument when you just make up things. Stop making up things. It makes you look stupid.
-
@Right_in_Virginia why do you continue to push this falsehood? Especially in light of the fact that he actually did little work in the Bush administration and actually opposed them as the Solicitor General for the State of Texas.
Have you really gotten to the point where you believe propaganda more than facts?
It's not propaganda @txradioguy, it's fact. At 29 Cruz was a "well respected" policy advisor for the Bush campaign in 2000 and was part of the legal team working on the recount.
In his book, A Time for Truth, Cruz wrote extensively about his time working on the domestic policy team of George W. Bush's 2000 campaign and as one of the lawyers handling the Florida recount.
Cruz also discussed in his book another friendlier time with one of America's most well known political families -- the time George P. Bush, Jeb Bush's son, invited him to Maine to meet his grandparents, former president George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush. He called it a "magical afternoon."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-reportedly-ted-cruz-dont-guy/story?id=34604244
-
Again - let's move on.
As the one who started this thread, yes, let's move on from the personal attacks and get back to the topic.
Of course, I recognize that I'm an expert at hijacking threads, so my hands aren't clean.
-
As the one who started this thread, yes, let's move on from the personal attacks and get back to the topic.
Of course, I recognize that I'm an expert at hijacking threads, so my hands aren't clean.
It isn't a bad article if anyone reads it. Slanted? Sure. But not bad.
-
No @HonestJohn posted a legitimate question.
DO you know how to sell people on the benefits of Trump? Do you know how to convince people who are on the fence or still convinced he's Hillary Clinton's bag man that he's the real deal?
Of course I do, @txradioguy I spent 12 months doing so, and very successfully.
But the NT's here were not serious about learning about Trump's policies. It quickly became clear this was a shell game designed to further ridicule both the candidate and his supporters. In short, it quickly became clear efforts to educate were wasted efforts.
Apparently for some the shell game continues. I'm still choosing not to play. ^-^
-
Of course I do, @txradioguy I spent 12 months doing so, and very successfully.
But the NT's here were not serious about learning about Trump's policies. It quickly became clear this was a shell game designed to further ridicule both the candidate and his supporters. In short, it quickly became clear efforts to educate were wasted efforts.
Apparently for some the shell game continues. I'm still choosing not to play. ^-^
I like most of Trump's policies, it's his style I disagree with.
-
I like most of Trump's policies, it's his style I disagree with.
That can take some getting used to. :laugh:
-
Of course I do, @txradioguy I spent 12 months doing so, and very successfully.
But the NT's here were not serious about learning about Trump's policies. It quickly became clear this was a shell game designed to further ridicule both the candidate and his supporters. In short, it quickly became clear efforts to educate were wasted efforts.
Apparently for some the shell game continues. I'm still choosing not to play. ^-^
If you did I never saw it. :shrug:
As for Trump's policies, most of us here already knew his policies and political opinions from his munerous interviews dating back to the Reagan years.
You didn't educate IMHO...you propagandized...there is a difference.
It's not a shell game....it's a legit question that deserves more than the superficial brush off answer you're giving.
-
If you did I never saw it. :shrug:
As for Trump's policies, most of us here already knew his policies and political opinions from his munerous interviews dating back to the Reagan years.
You didn't educate IMHO...you propagandized...there is a difference.
It's not a shell game....it's a legit question that deserves more than the superficial brush off answer you're giving.
Still not playing ^-^
-
It's not propaganda @txradioguy, it's fact. At 29 Cruz was a "well respected" policy advisor for the Bush campaign in 2000 and was part of the legal team working on the recount.
He has spent more time NOT working for or with W than he ever did for him. Longest serving Solicitor General in the history of the State of Texas. 5 years teaching law at UT Austin. Senator since 2012.
Less than two years working for Bush 43.
But when you choose hype over truth...little facts like that get in the way. :whistle:
And I thought ABC was an untrusted and biased source? Or is that only when they are covering Trump?
-
If you did I never saw it. :shrug:
As for Trump's policies, most of us here already knew his policies and political opinions from his munerous interviews dating back to the Reagan years.
You didn't educate IMHO...you propagandized...there is a difference.
It's not a shell game....it's a legit question that deserves more than the superficial brush off answer you're giving.
Because I already had a Dog in the hunt (Cruz), when Trump announced in June 2015, by July everything I suspected about Trump was cemented by his lust for publicity of the past 30 years.
He is a NY Liberal just like Schumer who, can't live without publicity either.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
If Cruz was such an Insider with the Bush Clan, why did they fight tooth and nail to keep him from defeating their crony Dewhurst for the vacant Senate seat?
-
Still not playing ^-^
Not really surprising.
-
That can take some getting used to. :laugh:
Most narcotics do.
-
It's not propaganda @txradioguy, it's fact. At 29 Cruz was a "well respected" policy advisor for the Bush campaign in 2000 and was part of the legal team working on the recount.
Mighty thin gruel for you to project your fantasies on, @Right_in_Virginia. But, if that's what you want to do, you go for it! Excuse the rest of us when we yawn or ignore.
-
Because I already had a Dog in the hunt (Cruz), when Trump announced in June 2015, by July everything I suspected about Trump was cemented by his lust for publicity of the past 30 years.
He is a NY Liberal just like Schumer who, can't live without publicity either.
Funny thing is...originally I was a defender of Trump. Have the posts on another site to prove it in case anyone wants to call BS...but the more I researched...the more I checked on thigns myself...the more I realized he wasn't and to this day isn't what he was being sold as.
-
Funny thing is...originally I was a defender of Trump. Have the posts on another site to prove it in case anyone wants to call BS...but the more I researched...the more I checked on thigns myself...the more I realized he wasn't and to this day isn't what he was being sold as.
That's an interesting comment, sieur! May I ask what he was being sold as?
-
That's an interesting comment, sieur! May I ask what he was being sold as?
A Republican and Conservative.
He's neither.
-
A Republican and Conservative.
He's neither.
Well, there is some truth to that but not entirely. Any definition of a dynamic reality is transitory because by the time it is defined, it may have changed again. Let us hope that is the case with Trump in regard to things like his attitudes on ethanol, tariffs, eminent domain and other issues of free trade where he is more Wilsonian (PTUI!) than Reaganesque ( Hooray!!)
Since the Buckley Rule is to vote for the MOST conservative candidate who can win, electing Trump was within the scope of that. Hill-O-Lies is certainly far to the left of even an "agrarian populist" position (to quote Mark Levin's appraisal of Trump's niche).
The real tests may be when Trump has to decide whether to go with a populist policy stance based on polling(for political expediency) or go with principled conservatism. He tends to be a fairly quick study so maybe by being surrounded by a lot of brilliant conservatives he will absorb some of their intelligence by osmosis.
-
You're Grasping at straws @LateForLunch in bringing WFB into this, he saw Trump coming 16 years ago and this quote from him lays to waste the 'Buckley Rule' you quote.
I do you an 'A' for Effort, though.
(http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/buckley_on_trump-560x360.jpg)
-
Since the Buckley Rule is to vote for the MOST conservative candidate who can win, electing Trump was within the scope of that. Hill-O-Lies is certainly far to the left of even an "agrarian populist" position (to quote Mark Levin's appraisal of Trump's niche).
The only problem I have with "The Buckley Rule" is it requires a certain amount of political prognostication on the part of people who don't do that very much. Instead, they have to rely on the abilities of others to tell them who's "electable." With almost all MSM news being fake these days, the notion of who's electable ends up being decided by the leftists in the press. :shrug:
-
You're Grasping at straws @LateForLunch in bringing WFB into this, he saw Trump coming 16 years ago and this quote from him lays to waste the 'Buckley Rule' you quote.
I do you an 'A' for Effort, though.
(http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/buckley_on_trump-560x360.jpg)
That is SUCH a prescient quote, @corbe
Too bad so many Republicans ignored it.
Or more likely, these days most Republicans voting for Trump have never even HEARD of Buckley.
-
Well, there is some truth to that but not entirely. Any definition of a dynamic reality is transitory because by the time it is defined, it may have changed again. Let us hope that is the case with Trump in regard to things like his attitudes on ethanol, tariffs, eminent domain and other issues of free trade where he is more Wilsonian (PTUI!) than Reaganesque ( Hooray!!)
Since the Buckley Rule is to vote for the MOST conservative candidate who can win, electing Trump was within the scope of that. Hill-O-Lies is certainly far to the left of even an "agrarian populist" position (to quote Mark Levin's appraisal of Trump's niche).
The real tests may be when Trump has to decide whether to go with a populist policy stance based on polling(for political expediency) or go with principled conservatism. He tends to be a fairly quick study so maybe by being surrounded by a lot of brilliant conservatives he will absorb some of their intelligence by osmosis.
We already know his stances on the things you mention. They are well documented and unlikely to change.
Trump wasn't the most conservative candidate that could have won. Only a Trump "true believer" or a foll thinks otherwise. And BTW I'm not talking about you in either category in this conversation.
There is no principle and there is no principled conservatism is what Trump is...what he stands for or what his policies will be.
Brilliant Conservatives...are these the ones he's vetting through BHO or ones we haven't seen him nominate yet?
At the end of the day...America got the President it deserved...NOT the one it needed.
-
We already know his stances on the things you mention. They are well documented and unlikely to change.
Trump wasn't the most conservative candidate that could have won. Only a Trump "true believer" or a foll thinks otherwise. And BTW I'm not talking about you in either category in this conversation.
There is no principle and there is no principled conservatism is what Trump is...what he stands for or what his policies will be.
Brilliant Conservatives...are these the ones he's vetting through BHO or ones we haven't seen him nominate yet?
At the end of the day...America got the President it deserved...NOT the one it needed.
Come on, brother! Trump was clearly the most conservative candidate in the GENERAL ELECTION who could win. I didn't support DJT in the primaries (Cruz was my choice). I cannot easily believe that a man of your obviously above-average intellect did not know what I meant.
Much of the rest of your statement is stipulated but some of it is speculative. I accept the former only.
Mark Levin has endorsed some of Trump's picks for cabinet posts as reliably conservative and with all due respect (and that is great) I trust the Great One's appraisal more than most of the posters on this forum, myself inclusive. Concerning the concerns of character deficiency and lack of ideological integrity, in my own experience, speculation is only generally useful in oil-drilling, investment banking and theoretical physics.
What may be has not happened yet and has therefore contains little substance in discussions of what is, not what might be.
-
He has spent more time NOT working for or with W than he ever did for him. Longest serving Solicitor General in the history of the State of Texas. 5 years teaching law at UT Austin. Senator since 2012.
Less than two years working for Bush 43.
@txradioguy
Thanks for removing my major concern about Cruz. I was worried he had been corrupted by the alleged Republican branch of the Kennedy family.
It speaks highly of anyone who backs away from them.
-
Funny thing is...originally I was a defender of Trump. Have the posts on another site to prove it in case anyone wants to call BS...but the more I researched...the more I checked on thigns myself...the more I realized he wasn't and to this day isn't what he was being sold as.
@txradioguy
Name ONE single presidential candidate since Goldwater that was what he claimed to be.
-
@txradioguy
Thanks for removing my major concern about Cruz. I was worried he had been corrupted by the alleged Republican branch of the Kennedy family.
It speaks highly of anyone who backs away from them.
Just to alleviate your concern even more there is this too:
Former President George W. Bush reportedly ripped into Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at a weekend gathering of donors to his brother's presidential campaign, according to a published report Monday.
Politico reported that Bush said of Cruz, "I just don't like the guy," at the event, which was held Sunday night in Denver.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/20/george-w-bush-reportedly-rips-ted-cruz-to-jeb-bush-donors.html
-
I like most of Trump's policies, it's his style I disagree with.
I agree.
Speaking of style, I would say I definitely don't like Trump's bragging. But the main reason why I didn't vote for him was his long history of lying. (Trump even seems to be proud of his lack of a conscience in that regard.)
-
@txradioguy
Name ONE single presidential candidate since Goldwater that was what he claimed to be.
Reagan.
-
I may be wrong,but it seems to me that at least half the people who claim to be conservatives that hate Trump are actually alleged Republican Party People,and are still upset that someone who hadn't carried water for the Bush Crime Family and didn't wear a Big Red "R" on their chest 2 decades ago will never be suitable to any of them.
WHY is everybody overlooking the obvious,which is that Trump is a businessman,and not a dictator. Like all successful businessmen,he has surrounded himself with specialists in the field of business,law,taxes,economics,and history,and when he wants to do something he consults the experts before he makes a move and then does what they tell him he needs to do to "win".
And make no mistake about it,there is NOTHING in the entire universe a narcissistic egomaniac like him wants more that to "win" Being tagged as a "loser" is a fate worse than death to him,and now he will soon be in the most public and exposed position of his life with EVERYBODY watching and almost nobody willing to cut him any slack at all. If he screws this up there is no way in hell that he can lie himself out of it. It will all be right out there in public for everyone to see.
MY hope and recent prediction is that his massive ego will force him to do the best he can do in order to go down in the history books as one of the greatest presidents in the last 100+ years,not a bum that screwed up everything he touched.
While I am not happy with a couple of the Generals he is auditioning for cabinet positions,I am pretty happy about a few of the others he wants to appoint to cabinet positions. More importantly,I haven't heard a name yet I am violently opposed to since Rudy and fat boy were sent to the showers.
When considering who he seems to be picking for advisors,you would have to be nuts to not think he will be a more pro-American President than Bubbette! and Bill Clinton.
For me,he nor any other candidate has to be perfect. They just have to be what I consider to be "right" on the big issues like immigration,gun control,EPA,etc,etc,etc. When I look at who he is talking with and the moves he has been making,I think I have reason to be hopeful that at least half of the things that are important to me will be addressed and corrected. Maybe even more.
AND.....,if he turns out to be wildly successful at turning back leftism while killing off the alleged Republican Party by doing so,I will be forced to break out into my "happy dance". The RNC has been nothing less than accomplices to the DNC ever since Reagan left office,and a bunch of those bastards need to be shown the door.
And no matter how much he screws up,he will still get more pro-American stuff done than Hillary,whose whole life has been devoted to destroying America.
-
A Republican and Conservative.
He's neither.
@txradioguy
Who was that was running for president this year?
-
I guess we'll be just hoping for the best, because this has been a Fustercluck from the get-go.
-
@txradioguy
Who was that was running for president this year?
A fraud.
As I said in a earlier post...we got the President we deserve...NOT the one we need.
-
Just to alleviate your concern even more there is this too:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/20/george-w-bush-reportedly-rips-ted-cruz-to-jeb-bush-donors.html
@txradioguy
Thanks! The more the Bush Crime Family brag on him by saying they hate him,the sadder I feel about him not winning the primary.
-
Reagan.
@txradioguy
Ok,ya got me there. Reagan was such an aberration that I overlooked him by mistake.
OTHER than Reagan,then.
-
@txradioguy
Who was that was running for president this year?
I thought Cruz would have been good, but I don't know if he could have beaten Clinton. Too hated.
-
I thought Cruz would have been good, but I don't know if he could have beaten Clinton. Too hated.
@Cyber Liberty
It seemed to me it was mostly the party insiders and "usual suspects" that hated him,and it is they who are most responsible for Cruz not winning the primary.
BUT....,Cruz is still a young guy,and by Presidential standards he will still be a young guy 4 and 8 years from now. It gives me some comfort to think he is waiting for his next big chance.
-
@Cyber Liberty
It seemed to me it was mostly the party insiders and "usual suspects" that hated him,and it is they who are most responsible for Cruz not winning the primary.
:thumbsup:
-
@sneakypete
I may be wrong
Shoulda stopped right there, cause you proved your argument is ludicrous by continuing.
Your hate for anything Bush borderlines on MY Trump Derangement Syndrome LEVEL, I'm seeking help I would encourage you to do so also.
(http://shadetxcraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Mad-Pecker.jpg)
-
@Cyber Liberty
It seemed to me it was mostly the party insiders and "usual suspects" that hated him,and it is they who are most responsible for Cruz not winning the primary.
A lot of voters I know didn't like him, either. Didn't like his face. Deep, huh?
-
I may be wrong,but it seems to me that at least half the people who claim to be conservatives that hate Trump are actually alleged Republican Party People,and are still upset that someone who hadn't carried water for the Bush Crime Family and didn't wear a Big Red "R" on their chest 2 decades ago will never be suitable to any of them.
WHY is everybody overlooking the obvious,which is that Trump is a businessman,and not a dictator. Like all successful businessmen,he has surrounded himself with specialists in the field of business,law,taxes,economics,and history,and when he wants to do something he consults the experts before he makes a move and then does what they tell him he needs to do to "win".
And make no mistake about it,there is NOTHING in the entire universe a narcissistic egomaniac like him wants more that to "win" Being tagged as a "loser" is a fate worse than death to him,and now he will soon be in the most public and exposed position of his life with EVERYBODY watching and almost nobody willing to cut him any slack at all. If he screws this up there is no way in hell that he can lie himself out of it. It will all be right out there in public for everyone to see.
MY hope and recent prediction is that his massive ego will force him to do the best he can do in order to go down in the history books as one of the greatest presidents in the last 100+ years,not a bum that screwed up everything he touched.
While I am not happy with a couple of the Generals he is auditioning for cabinet positions,I am pretty happy about a few of the others he wants to appoint to cabinet positions. More importantly,I haven't heard a name yet I am violently opposed to since Rudy and fat boy were sent to the showers.
When considering who he seems to be picking for advisors,you would have to be nuts to not think he will be a more pro-American President than Bubbette! and Bill Clinton.
For me,he nor any other candidate has to be perfect. They just have to be what I consider to be "right" on the big issues like immigration,gun control,EPA,etc,etc,etc. When I look at who he is talking with and the moves he has been making,I think I have reason to be hopeful that at least half of the things that are important to me will be addressed and corrected. Maybe even more.
AND.....,if he turns out to be wildly successful at turning back leftism while killing off the alleged Republican Party by doing so,I will be forced to break out into my "happy dance". The RNC has been nothing less than accomplices to the DNC ever since Reagan left office,and a bunch of those bastards need to be shown the door.
And no matter how much he screws up,he will still get more pro-American stuff done than Hillary,whose whole life has been devoted to destroying America.
I despise Trump for the same reason I despised Obama.
It's the Golden Rule. (I'm not all that religious, but this has always stuck with me. No matter what.)
With Obama, if I were a businessman running a small business, would I be outraged at his regulations? Yes, I would. Ergo, I could not support him.
With Trump, if I were an American-borne Muslim, could I live with Trump's policies? No, I would not. Ergo, even if I'm not affected, I cannot support him.
We understood that once. That we shouldn't treat others in a manner that we would not tolerate ourselves. That we must hang together, else we would all eventually hang seperately.
Now... we're looking for scapegoats. Mexicans! Muslims! Who'll be the next to hang?
-
A lot of voters I know didn't like him, either. Didn't like his face. Deep, huh?
A lot of voters didn't like Trump and he won.
-
I may be wrong,but . . .
You are.
-
@sneakypete
Shoulda stopped right there, cause you proved your argument is ludicrous by continuing.
Your hate for anything Bush borderlines on MY Trump Derangement Syndrome LEVEL, I'm seeking help I would encourage you to do so also.
(http://shadetxcraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Mad-Pecker.jpg)
@corbe
Nah,unlike YOU,*I* have reason to hate the Bush Crime Family/Republican Kennedy's.
Your irrational fear of the unknown could stand some looking at,though.
-
A lot of voters I know didn't like him, either. Didn't like his face. Deep, huh?
@Cyber Liberty
Well,that's what happens with the Biddy Voters get all hot and bothered.
-
I thought Cruz would have been good, but I don't know if he could have beaten Clinton. Too hated.
Crux's first month (Pre Donald) was getting his campaign off the ground, Then comes a totally NON-CONVENTIONAL campaigner, accusing him of being a LYING Globalist, constantly and after Ted won IOWA it got worse (though their were a few moments when they worked together), Then came the false charges of INFEDELITY on his 'Ugly' wife while his father hid his role in the JFK assassination.
Trump convinced his minions to hate Cruz, it worked, He won.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Well,that's what happens with the Biddy Voters get all hot and bothered.
Nope. When that happens they fall back and vote for the likes of a xenophobic demagogue like Trump.
-
With Trump, if I were an American-borne Muslim, could I live with Trump's policies? No, I would not. Ergo, even if I'm not affected, I cannot support him.
We understood that once. That we shouldn't treat others in a manner that we would not tolerate ourselves. That we must hang together, else we would all eventually hang seperately.
Now... we're looking for scapegoats. Mexicans! Muslims! Who'll be the next to hang?
@HonestJohn
Blah,blah,blah,more mindless bullbush. I don't give a rabid rats ass if he gives all Muslims 30 days to leave America or face hanging. Islam is NOT a religion,it is a dictatorial form of government,AND.....,Islam has declared war on us. We are no more obligated to allow any Muslims to continue to live here freely than we are anyone else who has declared themselves to be our enemy. They have been waging war on the west for over 700 years now,with a few breaks to recover and repopulate after we were forced to kill them off.
Mexicans are a nationality,and by definition are NOT Americans or they would be called Americans. I have known a bunch of people with Spanish last names whose grand-parents or parents have legally came her from Mexico and became US citizens and who were themselves born here,and if you were to call one of them a Mexican,you would be seriously pissing them off.
Any that are living here illegally and who don't want to become Americans instead of remaining Mexicans need to take their asses back across the border or suffer the consequences.
-
Crux's first month (Pre Donald) was getting his campaign off the ground, Then comes a totally NON-CONVENTIONAL campaigner, accusing him of being a LYING Globalist, constantly and after Ted won IOWA it got worse (though their were a few moments when they worked together), Then came the false charges of INFEDELITY on his 'Ugly' wife while his father hid his role in the JFK assassination.
Trump convinced his minions to hate Cruz, it worked, He won.
Because Trump's essential appeal is to hatred and despair; that's how he got the nomination and the election.
-
Nope. When that happens they fall back and vote for the likes of a xenophobic demagogue like Trump.
@Oceander
Yeah,it was the Biddies that were all hot and bothered over Trump that had the lust-fest known as "A Day in the Life of George Bush" on FR,huh? Remember them discussing how "hot" he looked "in those tight jeans" while pretending to cut brush?
-
@HonestJohn
Blah,blah,blah,more mindless bullbush. I don't give a rabid rats ass if he gives all Muslims 30 days to leave America or face hanging. Islam is NOT a religion,it is a dictatorial form of government,AND.....,Islam has declared war on us. We are no more obligated to allow any Muslims to continue to live here freely than we are anyone else who has declared themselves to be our enemy. They have been waging war on the west for over 700 years now,with a few breaks to recover and repopulate after we were forced to kill them off.
Mexicans are a nationality,and by definition are NOT Americans or they would be called Americans. I have known a bunch of people with Spanish last names whose grand-parents or parents have legally came her from Mexico and became US citizens and who were themselves born here,and if you were to call one of them a Mexican,you would be seriously pissing them off.
Any that are living here illegally and who don't want to become Americans instead of remaining Mexicans need to take their asses back across the border or suffer the consequences.
If you're going to reply to my post, don't edit it to say what you want it to say.
Here's my original post.
I despise Trump for the same reason I despised Obama.
It's the Golden Rule. (I'm not all that religious, but this has always stuck with me. No matter what.)
With Obama, if I were a businessman running a small business, would I be outraged at his regulations? Yes, I would. Ergo, I could not support him.
With Trump, if I were an American-borne Muslim, could I live with Trump's policies? No, I would not. Ergo, even if I'm not affected, I cannot support him.
We understood that once. That we shouldn't treat others in a manner that we would not tolerate ourselves. That we must hang together, else we would all eventually hang seperately.
Now... we're looking for scapegoats. Mexicans! Muslims! Who'll be the next to hang?
-
If you're going to reply to my post, don't edit it to say what you want it to say.
Here's my original post.
@HonestJohn
I quote the part I am replying to. WTH should I cut and past stuff I have no interest in responding to?
-
No Christmas Card from you this year, eh @sneakypete
(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/56b4ae4e6e97c621048b518c-480/barbara-bush.jpg)
-
Because Trump's essential appeal is to hatred and despair; that's how he got the nomination and the election.
His appeal "was" to hatred. Past tense. The campaign is not the governing. Historically there is a very pronounced demarcation between the tone and manner of the behavior of the campaign and that displayed while governing.
Surely someone as clearly learned and well-studied at you would know that, sieur!
Isn't it also ironic to some degree, that those who complain about Trump using hatred as a strategic tool during the campaign are now employing the same to stultify and damage his reputation - and apparently without a trace of misgiving or remorse. Interesting.
-
@HonestJohn
I quote the part I am replying to. WTH should I cut and past stuff I have no interest in responding to?
Because you are changing the meaning of my words. Selective omission is as damaging as selective addition.
-
His appeal "was" to hatred. Past tense. The campaign is not the governing. Historically there is a very pronounced demarcation between the tone and manner of the behavior of the campaign and that displayed while governing.
Surely someone as clearly learned and well-studied at you would know that, sieur!
Isn't it also ironic to some degree, that those who complain about Trump using hatred as a strategic tool during the campaign are now employing the same to stultify and damage his reputation - and apparently without a trace of misgiving or remorse. Interesting.
Do unto others... and all that.
Trump led the way on how he wants to *BE* treated... by doing so to others.
-
@Oceander
Yeah,it was the Biddies that were all hot and bothered over Trump that had the lust-fest known as "A Day in the Life of George Bush" on FR,huh? Remember them discussing how "hot" he looked "in those tight jeans" while pretending to cut brush?
Ok. Hitting the bottle early, I see.
-
Ok. Hitting the bottle early, I see.
Looks like he chasing whatever he's drinking with some 90 proof BDS.
-
Enough with hitting the bottle comments.
BTW...I was on that Bush thread almost nightly along with a few other ladies here....most did not agree with all of his policies but we all admired him for his WOT stance...and being CinC to our husband's and sons
-
Historically there is a very pronounced demarcation between the tone and manner of the behavior of the campaign and that displayed while governing.
When, do you think, he'll make that transition?
-
When, do you think, he'll make that transition?
I'm still wondering when Obummer is going to....
-
No Christmas Card from you this year, eh @sneakypete
(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/56b4ae4e6e97c621048b518c-480/barbara-bush.jpg)
@corbe
I know! Can you imagine? And even after I told her she was very smart,even if she did give birth to a little of retarded traitor mamas boys,they knew how to follow orders.
-
Because you are changing the meaning of my words. Selective omission is as damaging as selective addition.
@HonestJohn
HOW? I did a cut and paste of your very words,and did not alter them at all.
-
Ok. Hitting the bottle early, I see.
@Oceander
Congratulations! You are batting 1000 when it comes to predictions!
-
Enough with hitting the bottle comments.
BTW...I was on that Bush thread almost nightly along with a few other ladies here....most did not agree with all of his policies but we all admired him for his WOT stance...and being CinC to our husband's and sons
Self-censoring what I previously wrote.
Some of my strongest conservative and strongly moral women (and men) participated on that thread. And you're right. LOTS of disagreement with policy but lots of respect for a great CinC and a good man.
It's kind of sick to see anyone obsessing with seething hatred over such an admirable conservative group of people on a 15 year old thread.
-
When, do you think, he'll make that transition?
@Suppressed
I'm going to go out on a limb here,and predict "Not until after he takes office."
-
@HonestJohn
HOW? I did a cut and paste of your very words,and did not alter them at all.
You omitted the main point of my post and left only one example as the supposed "point". You changed the post to make it seem like the only reason I despise Trump is because of how he treats Muslims. Not my original meaning as below:
I despise Trump for the same reason I despised Obama.
It's the Golden Rule. (I'm not all that religious, but this has always stuck with me. No matter what.)
With Obama, if I were a businessman running a small business, would I be outraged at his regulations? Yes, I would. Ergo, I could not support him.
With Trump, if I were an American-borne Muslim, could I live with Trump's policies? No, I would not. Ergo, even if I'm not affected, I cannot support him.
---
That's what selective omission does.
-
You omitted the main point of my post and left only one example as the supposed "point". You changed the post to make it seem like the only reason I despise Trump is because of how he treats Muslims. Not my original meaning as below:
I despise Trump for the same reason I despised Obama.
It's the Golden Rule. (I'm not all that religious, but this has always stuck with me. No matter what.)
With Obama, if I were a businessman running a small business, would I be outraged at his regulations? Yes, I would. Ergo, I could not support him.
With Trump, if I were an American-borne Muslim, could I live with Trump's policies? No, I would not. Ergo, even if I'm not affected, I cannot support him.
---
That's what selective omission does.
Another name for that: Taking words out of context. And you are correct about what Pete did. For shame, @sneakypete . You're better than this. I've seen it.
-
Self-censoring what I previously wrote.
Some of my strongest conservative and strongly moral women (and men) participated on that thread. And you're right. LOTS of disagreement with policy but lots of respect for a great CinC and a good man.
It's kind of sick to see anyone obsessing with seething hatred over such an admirable conservative group of people on a 15 year old thread.
@musiclady
You people were and are practically worshipping the President that was probably responsible for selling America down the drain that any president before or since,including BathHouse Barry.
And you did it purely because he had the Big Red Magical Letter "R" on his chest,and he loved to talk about being religious. Nothing else was on any importance to any of you.
-
You omitted the main point of my post and left only one example as the supposed "point". You changed the post to make it seem like the only reason I despise Trump is because of how he treats Muslims. Not my original meaning as below:
I despise Trump for the same reason I despised Obama.
It's the Golden Rule. (I'm not all that religious, but this has always stuck with me. No matter what.)
With Obama, if I were a businessman running a small business, would I be outraged at his regulations? Yes, I would. Ergo, I could not support him.
With Trump, if I were an American-borne Muslim, could I live with Trump's policies? No, I would not. Ergo, even if I'm not affected, I cannot support him.
---
That's what selective omission does.
@HonestJohn
Frankly,I don't give a damn if you love or hate Muslims. I ACCURATELY quoted what you wrote,and then wrote what *I* think of Muslims in America,and why.
-
Another name for that: Taking words out of context. And you are correct about what Pete did. For shame, @sneakypete . You're better than this. I've seen it.
@Cyber Liberty
HorseHillary! His context was "I would be worried if I were an American Muslim",and my reply was focused on that specific point.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
If Cruz was such an Insider with the Bush Clan, why did they fight tooth and nail to keep him from defeating their crony Dewhurst for the vacant Senate seat?
It's all in the article I posted a link to @corbe .. and there are dozens of other sources if you care to Google the subject.
The Bush clan knew Jeb had to wait until 2016 to run for POTUS (can't have that royalty thing ...) and saw Raphael as a threat --- which is actually quite a compliment to Cruz, Jr.
-
@Cyber Liberty
HorseHillary! His context was "I would be worried if I were an American Muslim",and my reply was focused on that specific point.
I'm sorry, but as a dishonest third party observer I have to say I think extracting that sentence from the rest of the post distorted its import, therefore its meaning. It's just not Cricket, chap.
-
@Cyber Liberty
HorseHillary! His context was "I would be worried if I were an American Muslim",and my reply was focused on that specific point.
No, it was not.
The point was the Golden Rule. You responded to an *example* of it.
-
Trump convinced his minions to hate Cruz, it worked, He won.
To be fair, Cruz helped. :laugh:
-
@Suppressed
I'm going to go out on a limb here,and predict "Not until after he takes office."
@sneakypete
Yeah, he does seem a little slow.
The election is almost over....as soon as the election is held, he'll have more than a month before he takes office.
-
Because you are changing the meaning of my words. Selective omission is as damaging as selective addition.
I do that regularly. Mostly because I want to be clear on just exactly what I am responding to (but also because I remember the days when it was considered rude to have an email signature that was more than four lines because dialup was so slow you could almost read it faster than you could download it). I figure that since the quote function includes a link to the original post, anyone who really cares could consult the original full text. And I'm pretty much convinced no one is going to care what I have to say anyway, so it's all good.
-
I do that regularly. Mostly because I want to be clear on just exactly what I am responding to (but also because I remember the days when it was considered rude to have an email signature that was more than four lines because dialup was so slow you could almost read it faster than you could download it).
Exactly. It's a long-standing practice.
And speaking of large sig blocks, did you ever read alt.fan.warlord? It was named in honor of "Death Star, War Lord of the West", and people posted .sigs that violated the McQuary limit.
The first posting to alt.fan.warlord consisted of the War Lord's .sig:
_____________________________________________________________________________
| |
| | \ | / | |
| |\ \|/ /| |
| |XXXXX||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ((*)) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<||XXXXX| |
| |/ /|\ \| |
| | / | \ | |
| |
| Death Star |
| War Lord of the West Dkline@doc.bmd.trw.com |
|___________________________________________________________________________|
I sometimes wonder whatever became of him.
[Hey, if I'm going to hijack a thread, at least it's not squabbling with other posters!]
-
And speaking of large sig blocks, did you ever read alt.fan.warlord?
I did not, but I certainly hope he had the common decency to use tabs instead of spaces.
-
Hahahahaha, USENET!
Talk about a blast from the past.
-
To be fair, Cruz helped. :laugh:
No...not really. Even now you still can't be honest about what happened.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
Poll: Ted Cruz Leads 2016 GOP Field
Cruz's 21-hour stand against Obamacare wins him support.
By Rebekah Metzler | Staff Writer Sept. 27, 2013, at 2:25 p.m.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is already reaping benefits from his 21-hour stand against President Barack Obama's new health care law, as a new poll shows him leading the way for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
Cruz garnered 20 percent support compared to 17 percent for Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., 14 percent for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, 11 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and 10 percent each for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., according to a survey by Public Policy Polling released Friday. Cruz improved 8 percent from a similar poll in July.
"He's made himself the face of a government shutdown over Obamacare and the Republican base supports that by a 64 to 20 margin," said Tom Jensen, PPP's polling director in a memo accompanying the results. "It's not surprising that Republicans identifying as 'very conservative' support a shutdown 75 to 10, but even the moderate wing of the party supports it by a 46 to 36 margin."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/27/poll-ted-cruz-leads-2016-gop-field (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/27/poll-ted-cruz-leads-2016-gop-field)
At this time he was the darling of the Republican party, then Donald came along and pooped all over his parade route.
-
Because Trump's essential appeal is to hatred and despair; that's how he got the nomination and the election.
Which is SOOO much more ethical and moral than identity politics in which whites, law enforcement, Christians, traditionalists, patriots and people who support immigration changes are all dehumanized. What an unfunny joke. Xenophobic? hah there is no one on the planet more xenophobic than a leftist - who generally use the most vile, incendiary rhetoric imaginable to demonize everyone who disagrees with them strongly as sub-human. Hell Hill-O-Lies even did it to Bernie Sanders and before that to the Eightball Obama (she is the one who started the Birther Movement, not Trump - he simply capitalized on it to grab more free media coverage and hold center stage).
The Democrat party has become the party of hate. Not the rational sort, the schizoaffective sort. Like Ahab or perhaps Jim Jones. Egocentric, megalomaniacal and deeply irrevocably unrepentantly detached from reality. Dangerous to themselves and far worse, to everybody else. Self-adoring, elitist Cacogens who have no place in the meritocracy.
The leftist strategery (sic) was to desperately portray the Republican candidate as worse in every way than the 'Crat - which has brought the nation to the brink of a national crisis where many are talking seriously about how LEOs deserve to be murdered and comparing the president elect to mass murdering despots (virtually all of them leftists or muzz).
Trump beat the leftists at their own game - using words as munitions to create a desired effect, instead of primarily as tools of communication. So what? Hill-O-Lies crimes and offenses and destruction of life, liberty and property are all existential, Trumps mostly all speculative, hypothetical or alleged.
PLEASE keep up this sort of idiocy. You are doing so much more damage the causes leftism espouses than if you had just been gracious, fair-minded, rational good losers. And wonderful job in defeating Tim Ryan (who was virtually the sole advocate for the latter accountability/soul searching) for Speaker by more than a two-to-one margin. Bravo! PLEASE KEEP POSTING AND EXPRESSING YOUR STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING ELSE!!
-
You're Grasping at straws @LateForLunch in bringing WFB into this, he saw Trump coming 16 years ago and this quote from him lays to waste the 'Buckley Rule' you quote.
I do you an 'A' for Effort, though.
(http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/buckley_on_trump-560x360.jpg)
If we would speak of grasping at straws, what of a movement dedicated to judging someone by their past behavior and therefore willfully ignoring their current behavior or being unwilling to consider their future behavior? Such straw-grasping at hypothetical, speculative or alleged behavior only to support unrelenting, wholly megalithic irrational hatred requires a new term for accurate demarcation.
I have little doubt that Buckley would have voted for Trump, since his conservatism was marked above all by a pragmatic engagement with the totality of all political context. He would have recognized fully, the same things that Mark Levin acknowledged - that the disaster represented by Hill-O-Lies and her party was utterly inevitable without question and had its foundations in the most contemporary and grave criteria imaginable.
For you or anyone else to suggest that Buckely would have represented more of the sort of spineless, RINO-conservative claptrap that National Review staff now display routinely is (forgive me) ludicrous almost beyond the power of words to describe.
If Levin voted for Trump, so would have Buckley. Absolutely no question. See, he was brilliant and sane, apart from having any allegiance to doctrinaire ideology. Buckley was an idealist, not an ideologue. A pragmatist, not a doctrinaire dogmatist.
He would have understood that times had changed and that the era of the use of words as munitions had arrived and that statesmanship as an element of credential for high office had been supplanted by pop-cultural Super Stardom and all of the requirements and licentiousness inherent in that sea-change.
-
...what of a movement dedicated to judging someone by their past behavior and therefore willfully ignoring their current behavior or being unwilling to consider their future behavior?...
Now, that one is a jaw-dropper!
-
If we would speak of grasping at straws, what of a movement dedicated to judging someone by their past behavior and therefore willfully ignoring their current behavior or being unwilling to consider their future behavior? Such straw-grasping at hypothetical, speculative or alleged behavior only to support unrelenting, wholly megalithic irrational hatred requires a new term for accurate demarcation.
I agree people change @LateForLunch , but history shows us that at 70yo and a lifetime of Liberalism (attacking Reagan, even), the chances are slim and nill.
Keep Believing, your defense of Trump bothers me none.
I have little doubt that Buckley would have voted for Trump, since his conservatism was marked above all by a pragmatic engagement with the totality of all political context. He would have recognized fully, the same things that Mark Levin acknowledged - that the disaster represented by Hill-O-Lies and her party was utterly inevitable without question and had its foundations in the most contemporary and grave criteria imaginable.
I would disagree with proof he didn't always pull the 'R' lever.
In 1988 Buckley helped defeat liberal Republican Senator Lowell Weicker in Connecticut. Buckley organized a committee to campaign against Weicker and endorsed his Democratic opponent, Connecticut Attorney General Joseph Lieberman.[106]
For you or anyone else to suggest that Buckely would have represented more of the sort of spineless, RINO-conservative claptrap that National Review staff now display routinely is (forgive me) ludicrous almost beyond the power of words to describe.
If Levin voted for Trump, so would have Buckley. Absolutely no question. See, he was brilliant and sane, apart from having any allegiance to doctrinaire ideology. Buckley was an idealist, not an ideologue. A pragmatist, not a doctrinaire dogmatist.
I know a few TBR'ers here that I respect that voted for Trump, primarily due to the Swing State they live in.
We can never know or be stupid enough to predict how WFB woulda voted in Connecticut, but being such a blue state, it would have been a wasted effort none the less.
He would have understood that times had changed and that the era of the use of words as munitions had arrived and that statesmanship as an element of credential for high office had been supplanted by pop-cultural Super Stardom and all of the requirements and licentiousness inherent in that sea-change.
I think he understood that in 2000 when he made the quote you are responding to, and HE clearly disavowed it even then.
He died at 82 yo in 2008 and was a strong Conservative his whole Adult Life, unlike your guy.
-
I agree people change @LateForLunch , but history shows us that at 70yo and a lifetime of Liberalism (attacking Reagan, even), the chances are slim and nill.
Keep Believing, your defense of Trump bothers me none.
I would disagree with proof he didn't always pull the 'R' lever.
In 1988 Buckley helped defeat liberal Republican Senator Lowell Weicker in Connecticut. Buckley organized a committee to campaign against Weicker and endorsed his Democratic opponent, Connecticut Attorney General Joseph Lieberman.[106]
I know a few TBR'ers here that I respect that voted for Trump, primarily due to the Swing State they live in.
We can never know or be stupid enough to predict how WFB woulda voted in Connecticut, but being such a blue state, it would have been a wasted effort none the less.
I think he understood that in 2000 when he made the quote you are responding to, and HE clearly disavowed it even then.
He died at 82 yo in 2008 and was a strong Conservative his whole Adult Life, unlike your guy.
Buckley attacked some of Reagan's policies as I recall, not the man himself. For instance, Buckley opposed what RWR later admitted was his biggest mistake - trusting the 'Crats on Immigration Amnesty.
Come on! Weiker was less-conservative than Leiberman on most issues, which means that Buckley still abided by his Rule.
Clearly disavowed the Buckley Rule!?! I'm pretty sure I would have heard about that. Maybe an attribution other than the other quotation given for the basis of the statement that he would have voted against Trump, since he did not even mention his Rule?
Also, your referring to votes for president in deathly blue states as "wasted effort" is IMO 100% incorrect. As we have seen very clearly in the last few weeks, when dealing with yammerheads who are deeply ignorant of the value and history of the Electoral College, adding one's vote to the popular total does have significance in the larger picture.
No doubt there was at least one or two million voters in several of the hopelessly blue states (New York, New Jersey, Eastern-seaboard and Pacific Northwest states) who simply didn't vote for president because they knew their vote was not going to elect anyone in their state nor translate into Electoral College votes. I was not one of them (in Mexifornia) but I know a whole bunch of self-described Republicans in those states who didn't bother to vote for president.
The Republican party did a HORRIBLE job of reminding people why the popular vote matters - simply for PR in the larger political landscape and to help to get the loud-mouthed malcontents from the opposition party to STFU.
-
Now, that one is a jaw-dropper!
LfL missed the irony of her own statement it would appear