The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: massadvj on November 03, 2016, 01:46:02 pm
-
“Loco” or “Corrupto?” The Case for Loco.
Victor J. Massad
This whole Hillary Clinton e-mail fiasco reminds me of that great movie The Verdict starring Paul Newman. You probably remember it. The family of a woman who died on the operating table was suing the doctors and hospital for negligence, and Newman’s character Frank Galvin finally finds the smoking gun, only to have the judge in the case render it “irrelevant.” But the jury had seen the evidence, and it was damning. So Newman delivers one of the great trial closing statements in movie history. It seems to me his summation is worth looking at in these times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15uqb30Fq8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15uqb30Fq8)
“You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right. Tell us what is true.
I mean there is no justice. The rich win; the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time we become dead, a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims -- and we become victims. We become weak; we doubt ourselves; we doubt our beliefs; we doubt our institutions; and we doubt the law.
But today you are the law. You are the law…”
I believe that at the moment James Comey decided to reopen the investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal, America finally got its glimpse of what is true. And that truth is the very ugly reality that one of the candidates for the presidency of the United States is a traitor to this country. I need not make that case. In the coming weeks the truth will become more and more evident as the Clinton Inc. trail of corruption is exposed.
We have seen enough already to know what is there: selling access and favors to foreign governments, destroying evidence under subpoena, lying to congress and obstructing justice at every turn. Based only on what we know now from the limited evidence we the American people have been allowed to see, I don’t think anyone doubts it will all be verified in time. I also don’t think anyone believes Hillary Clinton will ever face justice for her many crimes.
There is a deeper truth in Frank Galvin’s words. The rich win. If I vote for Donald Trump in order to deny the presidency to Hillary Clinton, I doubt anything will substantially change. Trump is no more than a charlatan who has tapped into the anger and frustration of the American people in order to market himself as an “America First” populist; but everything in the man’s history demonstrates that he is not “America First” but “Trump First.”
When it came to honoring his pledges of fidelity to his spouses or indulging his basest desires, Trump chose the latter. When it came to honoring his pledges to his investors or leaving them out in the cold and cutting and running, Trump chose the latter. Donald Trump is clearly a self-absorbed narcissist who by no stretch of the imagination deserves to be President of the United States.
If Trump wins the presidency, I imagine he will redecorate the White House to look like some outlandish New Orleans brothel. He will hold lavish parties, and all the Washington elite (including the Obamas and the Clintons) will attend, and they will pay due homage to the newly-crowned emperor, and they will marvel at his abilities, and laugh at the yahoos in flyover country who bought his snake oil.
I believe all of this to be true. And yet, come Tuesday I will cast the worst vote of my life. I will vote for Donald Trump for president. And I will do so for one reason and one reason only. When I am alone in that voting booth I will close my eyes, wish I had another choice, and then utter to myself the only words that will matter.
“Today I am the law.”
-
“Today I am the law.”
Brilliant.
-
An analogy I've used often during these discussions.
If a person walks up to you and offers to shoot you in one of your arms, then goes on to try to convince you that shooting you in the left arm is best because you are right dominant, you don't negotiate what size bullet to use.
Even if everyone else is accepting the choice and trying to convince you to take the bullet in the left arm, you are under no obligation personally to follow the crowd.
No, when faced with a devil's bargain like that, your obligation to yourself is to fight against the original offer, no matter how many try to convince you to 'take one for the team'. When presented with the 'devil's bargain', the best option is to never agree to it in the first place, otherwise you will continue to be cornered into more and more of these unwinnable bargains.
Even if you stand alone, stand for what you believe is right.
-
:hands:
-
I think you're wrong about Trump and predict he will run one of the most citizen accessible administrations ever.
However I applaud your decision to vote for him despite the reservations. :patriot:
-
An analogy I've used often during these discussions.
If a person walks up to you and offers to shoot you in one of your arms, then goes on to try to convince you that shooting you in the left arm is best because you are right dominant, you don't negotiate what size bullet to use.
Even if everyone else is accepting the choice and trying to convince you to take the bullet in the left arm, you are under no obligation personally to follow the crowd.
No, when faced with a devil's bargain like that, your obligation to yourself is to fight against the original offer, no matter how many try to convince you to 'take one for the team'. When presented with the 'devil's bargain', the best option is to never agree to it in the first place, otherwise you will continue to be cornered into more and more of these unwinnable bargains.
Even if you stand alone, stand for what you believe is right.
I believe we are both acting in accordance with our deeply held beliefs, Abx. I think all of us have been tested by this election, and I don't think either of us will enter the voting booth with any illusions.
-
Good post, Victor.
"And that truth is the very ugly reality that one of the candidates for the presidency of the United States is a traitor to this country. I need not make that case. In the coming weeks the truth will become more and more evident as the Clinton Inc. trail of corruption is exposed."
Things are happening.
First, a hint of movement.
Then, more.
Then.... this:
(http://i.giphy.com/Tiau7IdnEg1na.gif)
-
I think you're wrong about Trump and predict he will run one of the most citizen accessible administrations ever.
However I applaud your decision to vote for him despite the reservations. :patriot:
I sincerely hope you are right, and that Trump turns out to be a better man than I imagine him to be.
-
“Loco” or “Corrupto?” The Case for Loco.
Victor J. Massad
This whole Hillary Clinton e-mail fiasco reminds me of that great movie The Verdict starring Paul Newman. You probably remember it. The family of a woman who died on the operating table was suing the doctors and hospital for negligence, and Newman’s character Frank Galvin finally finds the smoking gun, only to have the judge in the case render it “irrelevant.” But the jury had seen the evidence, and it was damning. So Newman delivers one of the great trial closing statements in movie history. It seems to me his summation is worth looking at in these times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15uqb30Fq8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15uqb30Fq8)
“You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right. Tell us what is true.
I mean there is no justice. The rich win; the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time we become dead, a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims -- and we become victims. We become weak; we doubt ourselves; we doubt our beliefs; we doubt our institutions; and we doubt the law.
But today you are the law. You are the law…”
I believe that at the moment James Comey decided to reopen the investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal, America finally got its glimpse of what is true. And that truth is the very ugly reality that one of the candidates for the presidency of the United States is a traitor to this country. I need not make that case. In the coming weeks the truth will become more and more evident as the Clinton Inc. trail of corruption is exposed.
We have seen enough already to know what is there: selling access and favors to foreign governments, destroying evidence under subpoena, lying to congress and obstructing justice at every turn. Based only on what we know now from the limited evidence we the American people have been allowed to see, I don’t think anyone doubts it will all be verified in time. I also don’t think anyone believes Hillary Clinton will ever face justice for her many crimes.
There is a deeper truth in Frank Galvin’s words. The rich win. If I vote for Donald Trump in order to deny the presidency to Hillary Clinton, I doubt anything will substantially change. Trump is no more than a charlatan who has tapped into the anger and frustration of the American people in order to market himself as an “America First” populist; but everything in the man’s history demonstrates that he is not “America First” but “Trump First.”
When it came to honoring his pledges of fidelity to his spouses or indulging his basest desires, Trump chose the latter. When it came to honoring his pledges to his investors or leaving them out in the cold and cutting and running, Trump chose the latter. Donald Trump is clearly a self-absorbed narcissist who by no stretch of the imagination deserves to be President of the United States.
If Trump wins the presidency, I imagine he will redecorate the White House to look like some outlandish New Orleans brothel. He will hold lavish parties, and all the Washington elite (including the Obamas and the Clintons) will attend, and they will pay due homage to the newly-crowned emperor, and they will marvel at his abilities, and laugh at the yahoos in flyover country who bought his snake oil.
I believe all of this to be true. And yet, come Tuesday I will cast the worst vote of my life. I will vote for Donald Trump for president. And I will do so for one reason and one reason only. When I am alone in that voting booth I will close my eyes, wish I had another choice, and then utter to myself the only words that will matter.
“Today I am the law.”
Good read.
And, like you, I hope to be proven wrong regarding what a Trump presidency will be like should he win.
The country cannot afford for me to be right
-
An analogy I've used often during these discussions.
If a person walks up to you and offers to shoot you in one of your arms, then goes on to try to convince you that shooting you in the left arm is best because you are right dominant, you don't negotiate what size bullet to use.
Even if everyone else is accepting the choice and trying to convince you to take the bullet in the left arm, you are under no obligation personally to follow the crowd.
No, when faced with a devil's bargain like that, your obligation to yourself is to fight against the original offer, no matter how many try to convince you to 'take one for the team'. When presented with the 'devil's bargain', the best option is to never agree to it in the first place, otherwise you will continue to be cornered into more and more of these unwinnable bargains.
Even if you stand alone, stand for what you believe is right.
All due respect (and that is great) abraxas's post is off-topic - we are discussing Hill-O-Lies, not someone else. Ignoring that minor transgression, I will respond to the content of the post quoted above anyway. This analogy is indeed repeated frequently and often. It presents a couple of very popular but utterly false premises and equally false analogies in support of its central thesis. Voting is not about shooting people least of all one's self. It's likewise not about making a moral statement or about asserting one's beliefs about philosophy. Nor does voting involve any "bargaining" with anyone, either the Devil or anyone else.
Voting is simply and only about contributing the fractional amount of voltage that one's franchise allows to cause one circuit to light up or another. Voltage applied to a circuit that cannot light up goes to ground.
Adding non-existent moral / philosophical dimensions to the act of voting (such as stating that by voting in some particular way, one in some way "stands up" for something other than one candidate or another) allows people to put forth arguments which they otherwise could not. The fact that these false theses are convenient for the purpose to which they are applied does not alter the fact that they are false, and wholly, transparently contrived.
This is colloquially known as "grinding an ax" and classically known as convincing through the use of a sophistic dialectic.
-
An analogy I've used often during these discussions.
If a person walks up to you and offers to shoot you in one of your arms, then goes on to try to convince you that shooting you in the left arm is best because you are right dominant, you don't negotiate what size bullet to use.
Even if everyone else is accepting the choice and trying to convince you to take the bullet in the left arm, you are under no obligation personally to follow the crowd.
No, when faced with a devil's bargain like that, your obligation to yourself is to fight against the original offer, no matter how many try to convince you to 'take one for the team'. When presented with the 'devil's bargain', the best option is to never agree to it in the first place, otherwise you will continue to be cornered into more and more of these unwinnable bargains.
Even if you stand alone, stand for what you believe is right.
Your analogy is silly. You are getting shot in the arm. There is no fighting it. It will happen. Period. It is going to be Hitlary or Donny elected President Tuesday night. There is no third option.
-
I don't care what you think, the title of this piece is funny. I like it.
-
Fine essay, massadvj. The dilemma I face is similar to yours - whether to remain neutral or to choose between "corrupto" and "loco" and vote to defeat the one I deem worse.
-
An analogy I've used often during these discussions.
If a person walks up to you and offers to shoot you in one of your arms, then goes on to try to convince you that shooting you in the left arm is best because you are right dominant, you don't negotiate what size bullet to use.
Even if everyone else is accepting the choice and trying to convince you to take the bullet in the left arm, you are under no obligation personally to follow the crowd.
No, when faced with a devil's bargain like that, your obligation to yourself is to fight against the original offer, no matter how many try to convince you to 'take one for the team'. When presented with the 'devil's bargain', the best option is to never agree to it in the first place, otherwise you will continue to be cornered into more and more of these unwinnable bargains.
Even if you stand alone, stand for what you believe is right.
VERY well stated and that is the course I will follow as long as I continue to suck air!
-
Very well done Victor! And I find no fault with your decision to vote for Trump even though I simply could not bring myself to do it.
I also hope to be proven wrong about Trump should he win which I very much doubt he will.
-
Very well done Victor! And I find no fault with your decision to vote for Trump even though I simply could not bring myself to do it.
I also hope to be proven wrong about Trump should he win which I very much doubt he will.
Your position and Vic's are actually very close. He said before he would not vote for Trump unless he had a chance to win PA. Since Trump does have that chance, then @massadvj will follow through with that. Shrillary has zero chance of winning TX, so there's nothing compelling you to vote Trump.
-
Your position and Vic's are actually very close. He said before he would not vote for Trump unless he had a chance to win PA. Since Trump does have that chance, then @massadvj will follow through with that. Shrillary has zero chance of winning TX, so there's nothing compelling you to vote Trump.
:beer:
-
Your position and Vic's are actually very close. He said before he would not vote for Trump unless he had a chance to win PA. Since Trump does have that chance, then @massadvj will follow through with that. Shrillary has zero chance of winning TX, so there's nothing compelling you to vote Trump.
As Bigun well knows, I'd rather be living and voting in Texas!
-
As Bigun well knows, I'd rather be living and voting in Texas!
True! I just don't know what the hold up is! :smokin:
-
Just excellent Victor. It really is.
-
“Loco” or “Corrupto?” The Case for Loco.
Victor J. Massad
This whole Hillary Clinton e-mail fiasco reminds me of that great movie The Verdict starring Paul Newman. You probably remember it. The family of a woman who died on the operating table was suing the doctors and hospital for negligence, and Newman’s character Frank Galvin finally finds the smoking gun, only to have the judge in the case render it “irrelevant.” But the jury had seen the evidence, and it was damning. So Newman delivers one of the great trial closing statements in movie history. It seems to me his summation is worth looking at in these times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15uqb30Fq8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15uqb30Fq8)
“You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right. Tell us what is true.
I mean there is no justice. The rich win; the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time we become dead, a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims -- and we become victims. We become weak; we doubt ourselves; we doubt our beliefs; we doubt our institutions; and we doubt the law.
But today you are the law. You are the law…”
I believe that at the moment James Comey decided to reopen the investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal, America finally got its glimpse of what is true. And that truth is the very ugly reality that one of the candidates for the presidency of the United States is a traitor to this country. I need not make that case. In the coming weeks the truth will become more and more evident as the Clinton Inc. trail of corruption is exposed.
We have seen enough already to know what is there: selling access and favors to foreign governments, destroying evidence under subpoena, lying to congress and obstructing justice at every turn. Based only on what we know now from the limited evidence we the American people have been allowed to see, I don’t think anyone doubts it will all be verified in time. I also don’t think anyone believes Hillary Clinton will ever face justice for her many crimes.
There is a deeper truth in Frank Galvin’s words. The rich win. If I vote for Donald Trump in order to deny the presidency to Hillary Clinton, I doubt anything will substantially change. Trump is no more than a charlatan who has tapped into the anger and frustration of the American people in order to market himself as an “America First” populist; but everything in the man’s history demonstrates that he is not “America First” but “Trump First.”
When it came to honoring his pledges of fidelity to his spouses or indulging his basest desires, Trump chose the latter. When it came to honoring his pledges to his investors or leaving them out in the cold and cutting and running, Trump chose the latter. Donald Trump is clearly a self-absorbed narcissist who by no stretch of the imagination deserves to be President of the United States.
If Trump wins the presidency, I imagine he will redecorate the White House to look like some outlandish New Orleans brothel. He will hold lavish parties, and all the Washington elite (including the Obamas and the Clintons) will attend, and they will pay due homage to the newly-crowned emperor, and they will marvel at his abilities, and laugh at the yahoos in flyover country who bought his snake oil.
I believe all of this to be true. And yet, come Tuesday I will cast the worst vote of my life. I will vote for Donald Trump for president. And I will do so for one reason and one reason only. When I am alone in that voting booth I will close my eyes, wish I had another choice, and then utter to myself the only words that will matter.
“Today I am the law.”
Nicely written. If I am the law, though, I choose neither.
See how easy that is?
I have another choice, four other choices, actually in my State and I will choose one of them.
Would it matter which flavor of rot I voted to inject into the body of this Republic, if I so choose? Either will putrefy the country I love. Either will render those carefully crafted organs of State further into amorphous festering ichor for their own personal profit and amusement. Both will fill the veins of Government with their own special brand of toxic sludge.
I will not vote for either. One is not preferable to the other. The evidence has been seen, sufficiently on both sides for those who will look, that they are different sides of a coin produced from polluted mettle, deeply flawed and of questionable value.
-
Eugene Volokh at the Washington Post:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwcIc89UQAAkMwT.jpg)
-
All due respect (and that is great) abraxas's post is off-topic - we are discussing Hill-O-Lies, not someone else. Ignoring that minor transgression, I will respond to the content of the post quoted above anyway. This analogy is indeed repeated frequently and often. It presents a couple of very popular but utterly false premises and equally false analogies in support of its central thesis. Voting is not about shooting people least of all one's self. It's likewise not about making a moral statement or about asserting one's beliefs about philosophy. Nor does voting involve any "bargaining" with anyone, either the Devil or anyone else.
Voting is simply and only about contributing the fractional amount of voltage that one's franchise allows to cause one circuit to light up or another. Voltage applied to a circuit that cannot light up goes to ground.
Adding non-existent moral / philosophical dimensions to the act of voting (such as stating that by voting in some particular way, one in some way "stands up" for something other than one candidate or another) allows people to put forth arguments which they otherwise could not. The fact that these false theses are convenient for the purpose to which they are applied does not alter the fact that they are false, and wholly, transparently contrived.
This is colloquially known as "grinding an ax" and classically known as convincing through the use of a sophistic dialectic.
Perhaps your moral/philosophical dimensions are non-existent. I cannot claim that. My vote is, after all, is my stamp of approval on something or someone. I vote for a candidate based not on who they are, but what they stand for, those moral/philosophical dimensions you so lightly pooh-pooh.
If those dimensions , which are directly reflected in the policies and actions any candidate espouses are ignored, what then, pray tell is the basis for comparison?
Height?
Hair color?
BMI?
The letter they decide to wear after their name and the color of their team jersey?
If we are to reduce the selection of heads of State to such superficial characteristics, what would that say about the nation they represent?
The Moral/Philosophical dimensions are an essential part of choosing who I will give my approval to as a head of state, especially when that person is to represent all my country stands for for the next however many years they are in office, because they will represent to other nations the moral and philosophical dimensions of a country that is considered 'the leader of the free world'.
All axe grinding aside, of those who are the major candidates this year, I can choose neither.
If you think those theses false, you aren't wired right.
-
Election Day: I will step into the booth and decide...
I doubt I will know when I pull into the parking lot.
-
Just excellent Victor. It really is.
:patriot:
-
Election Day: I will step into the booth and decide...
I doubt I will know when I pull into the parking lot.
Same here. Gosh, what did we do to deserve a choice like this?
-
Election Day: I will step into the booth and decide...
I doubt I will know when I pull into the parking lot.
It's difficult to predict the results of a coin toss.
-
I've been toying with the idea of swapping my Presidential vote for someone else's vote in the PA Senate race. I'm far more concerned about Pat Toomey getting re-elected than I am with the choice between Senora Corrupto and Senor Loco.
-
Perhaps your moral/philosophical dimensions are non-existent. I cannot claim that. My vote is, after all, is my stamp of approval on something or someone. I vote for a candidate based not on who they are, but what they stand for, those moral/philosophical dimensions you so lightly pooh-pooh.
No Joe, you misunderstand. I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly. I meant that APART FROM THE CHOOSING OF A CANDIDATE there is no other significant moral or philosophical issue which voting addresses. most specifically a vote does not support (or fail to support) any ideological "stand". Subtract the vote and no philosophy or moral issue is affected in any tangible way whatsoever - again, apart from its effect as related to how the candidate behaves after being elected by assistance of the vote. For some, a vote may have personal significance which they assign as a result of their own feelings. That is arguably not a tangible thing except for the person who voted and nobody else. [/quote]
I may indeed not be "wired right" but if so, it is likely for other reasons than may be found in that post.
I appreciate the civil response very much.
-
It's difficult to predict the results of a coin toss.
Tell that to Bernie.
-
Tell that to Bernie.
Bernie was never bright enough to look closely at the two-headed coin he was tossing....
-
Fine essay, massadvj. The dilemma I face is similar to yours - whether to remain neutral or to choose between "corrupto" and "loco" and vote to defeat the one I deem worse.
@Jazzhead
One should always, as Ted Cruz has stated, "vote their conscience" as however they themselves define it. I also am very conflicted this election. I have ultimately chosen not to cast a ballot for Trump this year for reasons I have already stated but I know and understand what a Hillary Clinton will bring to the office.
A very depressing election
-
Alright, already yet.
We've been given--shoved down our throats, actually, by the tyrannical, cynical, ruthless, demonic, satan worshiping globalist oligarchy in charge of things for a long time--they've given us
a horrible choice--as they are so skillful at doing.
And they have long structured the whole voting charade as a kind of farcical dialectic that always results in their agenda being advanced.
Nevertheless, I CANNOT and did NOT vote in any way which would even appear to contribute to the evil literal practicing bw*tch Shrillery back in the White House.
Her rage-a-holic, homicidal, ruthless, mean-spirited, black-hearted, etc. evil core; evil words; evil deeds are waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy beyond that of anyone major on the political scene Nationally. She's probably even very much beyond OThuga on such scores.
I cannot stomach even a hint of doing anything even appearing to contribute anything of any benefit whatesoever to that evil a creature.
I see Trump as many orders of magnitude not near as evil as she.
However, even 5% less evil would be enough for me to vote for Trump.
Third party votes IN THE REALITY that we are cast into--are merely functionally votes FOR Shrillery. I cannot even appear in any way, stretch or form to support that bw*tch.
High sounding lofty worded ideals are well and good to a point. But at the end of the day . . . a vote for anyone else than Trump is FUNCTIONALLY a vote for a satan worshiping bw*tch. And that's putting it mildly.
-
Alright, already yet.
We've been given--shoved down our throats, actually, by the tyrannical, cynical, ruthless, demonic, satan worshiping globalist oligarchy in charge of things for a long time--they've given us
a horrible choice--as they are so skillful at doing.
And they have long structured the whole voting charade as a kind of farcical dialectic that always results in their agenda being advanced.
Nevertheless, I CANNOT and did NOT vote in any way which would even appear to contribute to the evil literal practicing bw*tch Shrillery back in the White House.
Her rage-a-holic, homicidal, ruthless, mean-spirited, black-hearted, etc. evil core; evil words; evil deeds are waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy beyond that of anyone major on the political scene Nationally. She's probably even very much beyond OThuga on such scores.
I cannot stomach even a hint of doing anything even appearing to contribute anything of any benefit whatesoever to that evil a creature.
I see Trump as many orders of magnitude not near as evil as she.
However, even 5% less evil would be enough for me to vote for Trump.
Third party votes IN THE REALITY that we are cast into--are merely functionally votes FOR Shrillery. I cannot even appear in any way, stretch or form to support that bw*tch.
High sounding lofty worded ideals are well and good to a point. But at the end of the day . . . a vote for anyone else than Trump is FUNCTIONALLY a vote for a satan worshiping bw*tch. And that's putting it mildly.
In my state a third party vote will be a vote of conscience but will likely not change the allocation of electoral votes one iota. Thankfully, I am free of some obligation to choose between those two and can, in fact vote my conscience without affecting the outcome of the election, unless I am joined by a host of others who do the same.
So, I shall vote my conscience. Your situation is apparently different, and you have voted yours. I'm not giving you flack over that, but a vote for Darrell Castle is not a vote for Hillary, nor will it functionally assist her in any way.
Popular vote does not decide the election, and mine will remain as a dissenting voice..
-
In my state a third party vote will be a vote of conscience but will likely not change the allocation of electoral votes one iota. Thankfully, I am free of some obligation to choose between those two and can, in fact vote my conscience without affecting the outcome of the election, unless I am joined by a host of others who do the same.
So, I shall vote my conscience. Your situation is apparently different, and you have voted yours. I'm not giving you flack over that, but a vote for Darrell Castle is not a vote for Hillary, nor will it functionally assist her in any way.
Popular vote does not decide the election, and mine will remain as a dissenting voice..
I understand . . . and felt similarly with Perot . . . and regretted it.
-
I understand . . . and felt similarly with Perot . . . and regretted it.
Still, and I recall Perot, a vote for Perot here did not affect the electoral vote outcome.
The popular vote is not what decides the overall race, only when it changes the the electoral vote allocation does it make a difference. Mine is no battleground state. Here there would have been nothing to regret in a vote for Perot, because it would have taken far more for Clinton to get even one electoral vote out of North Dakota.
We know she is evil. We don't know that he is equally so, but he sure has a lot of the warning signs. He knows many of the same players, hobnobs with the same group, has supported them financially (likely bribes or 'contributions' to grease the skids), run in the same entertainment venues, repeatedly discusses a checkered past with no remorse or repentance nor does he see the need for any, despite proclaimed sin. With the myriad signs, the thin nuance of only suspecting he is as vile instead of knowing so is not much to base a vote on for me.
By contrast, I can vote for someone who represents a Party which proclaims that The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles and values. For this very reason peoples of all faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
(from the Preamble, Constitution Party Platform)
As I said, I do not judge you for your vote, you must vote your conscience.
I can vote mine, and will. While I know my vote will make no difference in the final tally of electoral votes, and thus who wins the election, I will have voted to affirm my beliefs and desires as a voter. I am blessed to have that luxury, without self-recrimination, to do so.
-
Tuesday "I am the law" - and I will choose neither Corrupto or her Trojan Stalking Horse Loco.
I will choose Castle and will forever only choose vetted certified Constitutional Conservatives.
Not that it matters a whit at this late date in the post-velvet coup Amerika.
-
Still, and I recall Perot, a vote for Perot here did not affect the electoral vote outcome.
The popular vote is not what decides the overall race, only when it changes the the electoral vote allocation does it make a difference. Mine is no battleground state. Here there would have been nothing to regret in a vote for Perot, because it would have taken far more for Clinton to get even one electoral vote out of North Dakota.
We know she is evil. We don't know that he is equally so, but he sure has a lot of the warning signs. He knows many of the same players, hobnobs with the same group, has supported them financially (likely bribes or 'contributions' to grease the skids), run in the same entertainment venues, repeatedly discusses a checkered past with no remorse or repentance nor does he see the need for any, despite proclaimed sin. With the myriad signs, the thin nuance of only suspecting he is as vile instead of knowing so is not much to base a vote on for me.
By contrast, I can vote for someone who represents a Party which proclaims that (from the Preamble, Constitution Party Platform)
As I said, I do not judge you for your vote, you must vote your conscience.
I can vote mine, and will. While I know my vote will make no difference in the final tally of electoral votes, and thus who wins the election, I will have voted to affirm my beliefs and desires as a voter. I am blessed to have that luxury, without self-recrimination, to do so.
Understand.
I certainly respect you and your voting rationale.
I was overseas for Perot and voted by absentee ballot. It certainly did not effect anything. LOL.
-
Just excellent Victor. It really is.
Mega dittos @massadvj :patriot:
-
Mega dittos @massadvj :patriot:
Thank you RIV. :beer:
-
You speak for a lot of us Victor...wish I could express myself as you do.
-
THANKS for your good and worthy points.
Well done, alright.
I do think that Trump is probably 1/10th the narcissist that Shrillery is.
“Loco” or “Corrupto?” The Case for Loco.
Victor J. Massad
This whole Hillary Clinton e-mail fiasco reminds me of that great movie The Verdict starring Paul Newman. You probably remember it. The family of a woman who died on the operating table was suing the doctors and hospital for negligence, and Newman’s character Frank Galvin finally finds the smoking gun, only to have the judge in the case render it “irrelevant.” But the jury had seen the evidence, and it was damning. So Newman delivers one of the great trial closing statements in movie history. It seems to me his summation is worth looking at in these times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15uqb30Fq8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15uqb30Fq8)
“You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right. Tell us what is true.
I mean there is no justice. The rich win; the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time we become dead, a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims -- and we become victims. We become weak; we doubt ourselves; we doubt our beliefs; we doubt our institutions; and we doubt the law.
But today you are the law. You are the law…”
I believe that at the moment James Comey decided to reopen the investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal, America finally got its glimpse of what is true. And that truth is the very ugly reality that one of the candidates for the presidency of the United States is a traitor to this country. I need not make that case. In the coming weeks the truth will become more and more evident as the Clinton Inc. trail of corruption is exposed.
We have seen enough already to know what is there: selling access and favors to foreign governments, destroying evidence under subpoena, lying to congress and obstructing justice at every turn. Based only on what we know now from the limited evidence we the American people have been allowed to see, I don’t think anyone doubts it will all be verified in time. I also don’t think anyone believes Hillary Clinton will ever face justice for her many crimes.
There is a deeper truth in Frank Galvin’s words. The rich win. If I vote for Donald Trump in order to deny the presidency to Hillary Clinton, I doubt anything will substantially change. Trump is no more than a charlatan who has tapped into the anger and frustration of the American people in order to market himself as an “America First” populist; but everything in the man’s history demonstrates that he is not “America First” but “Trump First.”
When it came to honoring his pledges of fidelity to his spouses or indulging his basest desires, Trump chose the latter. When it came to honoring his pledges to his investors or leaving them out in the cold and cutting and running, Trump chose the latter. Donald Trump is clearly a self-absorbed narcissist who by no stretch of the imagination deserves to be President of the United States.
If Trump wins the presidency, I imagine he will redecorate the White House to look like some outlandish New Orleans brothel. He will hold lavish parties, and all the Washington elite (including the Obamas and the Clintons) will attend, and they will pay due homage to the newly-crowned emperor, and they will marvel at his abilities, and laugh at the yahoos in flyover country who bought his snake oil.
I believe all of this to be true. And yet, come Tuesday I will cast the worst vote of my life. I will vote for Donald Trump for president. And I will do so for one reason and one reason only. When I am alone in that voting booth I will close my eyes, wish I had another choice, and then utter to myself the only words that will matter.
“Today I am the law.”
-
You speak for a lot of us Victor...wish I could express myself as you do.
:kisses2:
-
Victor, I knew you'd come around to reality.
Thanks for the post.
-
Nicely put, but the old curmudgeon, stubborn , principled me just couldn't pull the lever for either of one of these turds.
I hold the 11,000,000 + who voted for Trump in the primaries accountable for the disaster.
-
It would do no good to put forth any more pointed, reasoned refutation arguments in favor of Donald Trump in response to the above posts - virtually every poster above has given strong signals in how their posts are worded that they personally are not prepared to consider any change to their position.
That is tantamount to admitting that one is a fanatic, and I have a firm policy of never entering into a substantive debate with a fanatic.
Instead I will restate what I believe is the truth for anyone who is following this thread who may be undecided.
Much has been said in prediction of that Donald Trump will do as president but the bottom line is that nobody knows for sure - regardless of past verbal or overt behavior - people can change. Sometimes people can change a great deal in only a few months.
One of the marks of billionaire business people is adaptability. They tend to change their strategy and configure their resources (personal and logistic) to the task at hand. Career politicians like Hill-O-Lies survive by remaining exactly as they are but repackaging themselves using slick PR and propaganda tools.
For this reason, Hill-O-Lies is unlikely to change anything significantly about herself - she has behaved like an Alinskyite Marxist (albeit a softer species of tyrant than Alinsky or his heroes Trotsky or Bolivar) for her entire life, before during and after each political incarnation. She is arguably a radical socialist to the core of her being, just like the Eightball Obama.
Trump is at worst a populist. He has no proclivities to do anything other than to adapt to the needs of the time in whatever context he functions. Although he is not a principled conservative, he has chosen one as his VP, which says a lot about what he wants to do for the nation.
If Trump wins he will want to be reelected (not even his greatest detractors have disputed the notion that he has a strong enough ego to want to be reelected) the logical thing for him to do would be to govern in such a way that he does not alienate the constituents who elected him, many (most of) them who are either anti-establishment types voting for the first time, conservatives or self-described moderates who find Hill-O-Lies obvious ideological extremism horribly disturbing. So he will likely rely on Pence for long-term policy direction and on his own instincts for adaptability to the other dictates of dominion.
At worst Trump will likely do what Slick Willie did and use the Machiavellian/Alinskyite strategery (sic) known as "triangulation" which is to take input from his own policy people (Pence, et al) the Congress and the People (through opinion polling).
That was how Slick Willie won the hearts of so many self-described "moderates" in his two terms, he compromised with his political adversaries when the polling told him that it would benefit him politically.
The advantage that Trump has over Slick Willie is that the latter became totally dominated by opinion polling and political motivations. His success in that regard changed the political landscape (especially for the 'Crats) and largely gave us both the Eightball Obama (who is also a purely political animal, not a statesman) and the Bitch (ditto). Trump has little inclination to be a purely political animal, because he has thumbed his nose at the establishment in many ways throughout his campaign and his constituents expect him to continue to be more of an iconoclast than a sock-puppet who holds his finger to the wind to sense the trend of opinion before blowing his nose the way most 'Crats and RINOs do.
-
I opposed Trump when he first announced his candidacy. I opposed Trump during the primary battles. I opposed Trump and called for an uprising to defeat him at the convention. I opposed Trump and called for him to step down when Pussygate erupted.
Now it's come down to Election Day. Will I spit the bit?
-
I opposed Trump when he first announced his candidacy. I opposed Trump during the primary battles. I opposed Trump and called for an uprising to defeat him at the convention. I opposed Trump and called for him to step down when Pussygate erupted.
Now it's come down to Election Day. Will I spit the bit?
I have given up trying to convince fanatics of anything. Even of the fact that they are fanatics which most deny. A fanatic BTW, is someone who has no interest in considering substantive arguments in opposition to their own view. That would be you.
I am not fanatically pro-Trump so much as anti-Hill-O-Lies.
The argument that Trump is "just as bad and would govern just as badly" as Hill-O-Lies has always seemed contrived and specious and I think it seems that way to most fair-minded people too. Those who have invested months of emotional capital in their opposition to Trump are unlikely to have any sort of epiphany. Their own egos will be the first and foremost hurdle to overcome in that sense, because so many people identify so strongly with their opinions, that to reappraise their opinion would be tantamount to shaking the foundations of their personalities - which few people are willing to do under any circumstances, least of all ones that are based purely in an abstraction such as the "best interests of the nation".
-
It would do no good to put forth any more pointed, reasoned refutation arguments in favor of Donald Trump in response to the above posts - virtually every poster above has given strong signals in how their posts are worded that they personally are not prepared to consider any change to their position.
That is tantamount to admitting that one is a fanatic, and I have a firm policy of never entering into a substantive debate with a fanatic.
Instead I will restate what I believe is the truth for anyone who is following this thread who may be undecided.
Much has been said in prediction of that Donald Trump will do as president but the bottom line is that nobody knows for sure - regardless of past verbal or overt behavior - people can change. Sometimes people can change a great deal in only a few months.
One of the marks of billionaire business people is adaptability. They tend to change their strategy and configure their resources (personal and logistic) to the task at hand. Career politicians like Hill-O-Lies survive by remaining exactly as they are but repackaging themselves using slick PR and propaganda tools.
For this reason, Hill-O-Lies is unlikely to change anything significantly about herself - she has behaved like an Alinskyite Marxist (albeit a softer species of tyrant than Alinsky or his heroes Trotsky or Bolivar) for her entire life, before during and after each political incarnation. She is arguably a radical socialist to the core of her being, just like the Eightball Obama.
Trump is at worst a populist. He has no proclivities to do anything other than to adapt to the needs of the time in whatever context he functions. Although he is not a principled conservative, he has chosen one as his VP, which says a lot about what he wants to do for the nation.
If Trump wins he will want to be reelected (not even his greatest detractors have disputed the notion that he has a strong enough ego to want to be reelected) the logical thing for him to do would be to govern in such a way that he does not alienate the constituents who elected him, many (most of) them who are either anti-establishment types voting for the first time, conservatives or self-described moderates who find Hill-O-Lies obvious ideological extremism horribly disturbing. So he will likely rely on Pence for long-term policy direction and on his own instincts for adaptability to the other dictates of dominion.
At worst Trump will likely do what Slick Willie did and use the Machiavellian/Alinskyite strategery (sic) known as "triangulation" which is to take input from his own policy people (Pence, et al) the Congress and the People (through opinion polling).
That was how Slick Willie won the hearts of so many self-described "moderates" in his two terms, he compromised with his political adversaries when the polling told him that it would benefit him politically.
The advantage that Trump has over Slick Willie is that the latter became totally dominated by opinion polling and political motivations. His success in that regard changed the political landscape (especially for the 'Crats) and largely gave us both the Eightball Obama (who is also a purely political animal, not a statesman) and the Bitch (ditto). Trump has little inclination to be a purely political animal, because he has thumbed his nose at the establishment in many ways throughout his campaign and his constituents expect him to continue to be more of an iconoclast than a sock-puppet who holds his finger to the wind to sense the trend of opinion before blowing his nose the way most 'Crats and RINOs do.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I haven't seen much change in yours, despite the opinions of others being rendered repeatedly on the threads. Apparently your mind will not be changed, your position remains unswayed.
Be careful who you label "fanatic". I think that might fit more than you think.
-
I have given up trying to convince fanatics of anything. Even of the fact that they are fanatics which most deny. A fanatic BTW, is someone who has no interest in considering substantive arguments in opposition to their own view. That would be you.
I am not fanatically pro-Trump so much as anti-Hill-O-Lies.
The argument that Trump is "just as bad and would govern just as badly" as Hill-O-Lies has always seemed contrived and specious and I think it seems that way to most fair-minded people too. Those who have invested months of emotional capital in their opposition to Trump are unlikely to have any sort of epiphany. Their own egos will be the first and foremost hurdle to overcome in that sense, because so many people identify so strongly with their opinions, that to reappraise their opinion would be tantamount to shaking the foundations of their personalities - which few people are willing to do under any circumstances, least of all ones that are based purely in an abstraction such as the "best interests of the nation".
I am no fanatic, sir. I am saddened by the choice we face. I do not want to choose between two evils, and wish I didn't live in a swing state so I could have the luxury of casting a vote for a man I believe in, in a year where the two major parties offer a choice between a new Nixon or a new Mussolini.
I feel uncomfortable doing what Sink did by voting for a fine, honest, uncorruptable individual like Evan McMullin. I wish I could do just that and sleep soundly. But here in Pennsylvania, which could decide the whole enchilada? Is it a cop-out to remain neutral? This is a decision that is tearing at me. And you label me a "fanatic".
You have no idea the pain this election is causing good folks, in cities and towns all across this land.
-
I look at it this way. Who is going to have the press on their side and cover for their crimes? Clearly, the answer is Hillary. Trump won't be able to get away with squat.
-
I am no fanatic, sir. I am saddened by the choice we face. I do not want to choose between two evils, and wish I didn't live in a swing state so I could have the luxury of casting a vote for a man I believe in, in a year where the two major parties offer a choice between a new Nixon or a new Mussolini.
I feel uncomfortable doing what Sink did by voting for a fine, honest, uncorruptable individual like Evan McMullin. I wish I could do just that and sleep soundly. But here in Pennsylvania, which could decide the whole enchilada? Is it a cop-out to remain neutral? This is a decision that is tearing at me. And you label me a "fanatic".
You have no idea the pain this election is causing good folks, in cities and towns all across this land.
We're just "fanatics" because we won't change our mind and think like he wants us to, even though he won't change his. :pondering:
-
We're just "fanatics" because we won't change our mind and think like he wants us to, even though he won't change his. :pondering:
Whenever one of you lovely people would like to propose something besides asserting that you can tell the future (saying that there is no doubt that Trump will be as bad or worse president than Hill-O-Lies - I believe only that there is no doubt IN ANY OF YOUR MINDS) or that there is some substantive objective evidence that Donald Trump is clinically INSANE (rolls eyes), I might be willing to respond. But all that happens is I hear restatements of those silly ideas repeated more and more-emphatically accompanied of course by harsh invective and crude insults. If THAT is what you want to call a substantive argument in favor of your position, then no. I decline.
-
Whenever one of you lovely people would like to propose something besides asserting that you can tell the future (saying that there is no doubt that Trump will be as bad or worse president than Hill-O-Lies - I believe only that there is no doubt IN ANY OF YOUR MINDS) or that there is some substantive objective evidence that Donald Trump is clinically INSANE (rolls eyes), I might be willing to respond. But all that happens is I hear restatements of those silly ideas repeated more and more-emphatically accompanied of course by harsh invective and crude insults. If THAT is what you want to call a substantive argument in favor of your position, then no. I decline.
I am not interested in changing your position, LFL. You will vote your conscience, and I will mine. But how the hell do you choose between Too Corrupt and Too Crazy? Those are abominable options.
-
Whenever one of you lovely people would like to propose something besides asserting that you can tell the future (saying that there is no doubt that Trump will be as bad or worse president than Hill-O-Lies - I believe only that there is no doubt IN ANY OF YOUR MINDS) or that there is some substantive objective evidence that Donald Trump is clinically INSANE (rolls eyes), I might be willing to respond. But all that happens is I hear restatements of those silly ideas repeated more and more-emphatically accompanied of course by harsh invective and crude insults. If THAT is what you want to call a substantive argument in favor of your position, then no. I decline.
My point is that your mind is made up,, too. You have not listened to argument, nor have you been able to adequately refute it. Your beliefs are based, not on fact but belief. Your position is immutable also. So, if we are fanatics, well, welcome to the club.
-
I'm one of these oddballs around here who thinks that Mr. Trump is neither loco, nor a groper, nor a liberal -- I'll give you that he does have small hands though, and that sometimes it seems that English is his second language.
But, to his the detractors, however, I would say this. Donald Trump's first project in the rough and tumble world of New York City real estate was the Jacob Javits Center, one of the largest convention centers in the nation. Mr. Trump was around 25 when he first began planning to do a major project in Manhattan – turned out that first major project was the Jacob Javits convention center. His father had stayed out of Manhattan and built subdivisions primarily in Queens. But Donald Trump had bigger plans.
That's it. I just wanted to say this to you folks so that perhaps you might think about your accomplishments at age 25, or perhaps the billions of dollars you made, and lost in a national economic collapse – and made over again, or the skyscrapers you've built around the world and the thousands of jobs you've created.
But, lets not go there okay? Because as many of you keep saying and apparently keep believing: Donald Trump is insane.
Oh, one other point in regards to my defense of Donald Trump: History is prologue. Just look what he's accomplished in politics. Demolished the Bushes in the primary and is poised to vanquish – FINALLY! – the Clinton crime family. I'd say that's not too bad for a novice politician.
-
I have given up trying to convince fanatics of anything. Even of the fact that they are fanatics which most deny. A fanatic BTW, is someone who has no interest in considering substantive arguments in opposition to their own view. That would be you.
That is the SAME stupid tactic we hear verbatim from the Leftist Elitist Statists who get all verklempt just like you do that people will 'cling to their guns and religion' while refusing to accept what is best for them. Fanatics who will not accept bullshite arguments in favor of things like homo marriage, Statist Healthcare, taxing the rich and the entire panoply of the Leftist agenda that we reject. Like you, they resort to calling us fanatics, homophobes, Islamophobes, racists, unthinking, 'not serious', etc.
Just like you demonstrate.
You are the hallmark of Elistist thought and application. A classic Alinskyite projectionist.
And for the record - I am PROUD to be an anti-Trump fanatic.
What do you intend to do about it?
Refuse to 'enter a substantive debate' I gather.
We're so hurt that you think us too savage and entrenched in our principles that you cannot move us from them.
-
I am an unrepentant NEVER EVER EVER TRUMP
Already voted absentee, and am proud of my vote..
-
I'm one of these oddballs around here who thinks that Mr. Trump is neither loco, nor a groper, nor a liberal -- I'll give you that he does have small hands though, and that sometimes it seems that English is his second language.
But, to his the detractors, however, I would say this. Donald Trump's first project in the rough and tumble world of New York City real estate was the Jacob Javits Center, one of the largest convention centers in the nation. Mr. Trump was around 25 when he first began planning to do a major project in Manhattan – turned out that first major project was the Jacob Javits convention center. His father had stayed out of Manhattan and built subdivisions primarily in Queens. But Donald Trump had bigger plans.
That's it. I just wanted to say this to you folks so that perhaps you might think about your accomplishments at age 25, or perhaps the billions of dollars you made, and lost in a national economic collapse – and made over again, or the skyscrapers you've built around the world and the thousands of jobs you've created.
But, lets not go there okay? Because as many of you keep saying and apparently keep believing: Donald Trump is insane.
Oh, one other point in regards to my defense of Donald Trump: History is prologue. Just look what he's accomplished in politics. Demolished the Bushes in the primary and is poised to vanquish – FINALLY! – the Clinton crime family. I'd say that's not too bad for a novice politician.
I happen to think the whole world is insane. Politicians and strongly ambitious people tend to be more insane than most. If insanity were to exclude someone from political office, I dare say no one would run and we would have to force people to do it.
The whole idea behind American freedom and the constitution is to limit government power so that the insanity does not infect the greater fabric of the culture. Unfortunately, we have so usurped it that the experiment can now be regarded as a failure. I think this election is going to affirm that a slight majority of Americans actually prefer a rigged system, which is socialist democracy in action.
The best we poor voters can hope for is to pick our particular favored brand of insanity. I fear after tomorrow even that authority will have been taken from us by the tyranny of the majority.
-
I am an unrepentant NEVER EVER EVER TRUMP
Already voted absentee, and am proud of my vote..
Hillary appreciates your support.
-
Hillary appreciates your support.
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
There you go again.
-
Hillary appreciates your support.
This again eh?
Fine.
What do you intend to do about it punk?
-
Hillary appreciates your support.
When Trump loses he will be able to thank supporters like you! With that kind of support you don't need any enemies!
-
This again eh?
Fine.
What do you intend to do about it punk?
I intend to fight you and all others that would hand the country over to the Marxist globalist to my last breath punk. Bring it punk.
-
That is the SAME stupid tactic we hear verbatim from the Leftist Elitist Statists who get all verklempt just like you do that people will 'cling to their guns and religion' while refusing to accept what is best for them. Fanatics who will not accept bullshite arguments in favor of things like homo marriage, Statist Healthcare, taxing the rich and the entire panoply of the Leftist agenda that we reject. Like you, they resort to calling us fanatics, homophobes, Islamophobes, racists, unthinking, 'not serious', etc.
Just like you demonstrate.
You are the hallmark of Elistist thought and application. A classic Alinskyite projectionist.
And for the record - I am PROUD to be an anti-Trump fanatic.
What do you intend to do about it?
Refuse to 'enter a substantive debate' I gather.
We're so hurt that you think us too savage and entrenched in our principles that you cannot move us from them.
You sound really, really angry Invar which is strange because my tone was very civil and contained no anger - only my opinions of what I believed the facts to be. So it sounds to me like I hit a nerve 'cause why else so angry!?! I would venture to propose that I am not the one your post is aimed at - it seems strongly to me that are attempting to re-convince yourself because my post may have triggered some self doubt (though that was not my intention in stating what are to me obvious facts). I understand that you disagree.
I would be the most astonished person in the world if a single one of the most passionate anti-Trumpsters on this forum changed their opinion now.Not even if I brought an overwhelming argument that was iron-clad would any of you recognize it. To a large degree WE SEE WHAT WE DESIRE TO SEE. So I refuse your invitation. Convince yourself of all of that stuff if you like, but leave me out of it. I will not enable that sort of indulgence in travels to the outer solar system of morbid rumination.
-
I intend to fight you and all others that would hand the country over to the Marxist globalist to my last breath punk.
I'll be waiting for you to make that last stupid mistake.
-
I intend to fight you and all others that would hand the country over to the Marxist globalist to my last breath punk. Bring it punk.
You do realize that both major candidates meet your criteria?
The chance to vote for a small government, constitution protecting conservative candidate went away months ago?
-
@jpsb !
@INVAR !
KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE THREATS!
You both know better than this!
-
@jpsb !
@INVAR !
KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE THREATS!
You both know better than this!
I understand both of their anger and I agree that it's not necessary to be governed by anger. It makes an excellent servant when it can be harnessed and applied to positive purpose, but a very poor master even under the best of circumstances.
Invar may be intensely frustrated because he find no amelioration to his central concerns in voting this year. I would suggest that maybe narrowing one's options tends to aggravate that sense of desperate frustration. Maybe admitting the possibility that Trump might not be as catastrophically bad as Hill-O-Lies would surely be might ease some of the anxiety.
JPSB may be feeling an equal measure of frustrated rage for different reasons, in that the anti-Trumpsters have realized the absolute best hopes of the democrats and the absolute worst fears of the Trump supporters in taking what appears to be an unshakably strident stance against any consideration of accepting Trump as a viable alternative to Hill-O-Lies, even against what appears to he, I and others, strong evidence to support the possibility that he might be just that.
We are all feeling stressed and vulnerable because none of us like to feel powerless - and that is the only thing both the anti-Trumpsters and the pro-Trump people have in common and almost overwhelming feeling of, "My God, HOW ON EARTH DID WE GET HERE TO THIS POINT!?!"
For myself, I am posting another thread titled, What I will do if Hill-O-Lies wins" because I have to find some intellectual platform from which to operate in that eventuality. I have lived most of my life with the philosophy "Hope for the best and plan for the worst".
-
I intend to fight you and all others that would hand the country over to the Marxist globalist to my last breath punk. Bring it punk.
No one here wants to "hand the country over to the Marxist globalists". This is an extraordinarily difficult choice being faced by many of us. Cats like aligncare are fortunate - they truly believe in Trump's abilities and bona fides. The rest of us have been seeing and hearing his temperament on display for almost two years now, and are genuinely alarmed.
It's not easy to vote against one's own interests and long-time party loyalties. I wish Trump had decided once he'd secured the nomination to reach out to those who had opposed him and began acting like a statesman. But the petulant child never changed. The vendettas, the fueds, the narcissistic and erratic behavior have continued apace, and he seems unwilling or unable to listen to counsel or control his worst impulses.
Clinton says he's unfit to have his hands on the nuclear codes. Well, WHAT SAY YOU? I've been waiting for Trump for months to grow up, and assure me he's ready for the awesome responsibility he seeks. But he won't change. Maybe he can't change. And CLINTON'S EXISTENTIAL CHARGE GOES UNANSWERED, both by Trump and by Trump's supporters.
And Election Day is tomorrow, and the time for showing growth and maturity is up. And so, with a heavy heart, I've got to do what I've got to do.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPN3Fv2aJhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPN3Fv2aJhE)
-
Clinton says he's unfit to have his hands on the nuclear codes. Well, WHAT SAY YOU?
Verbal behavior is not overt behavior. That is what I say. One does not become a multi-billionaire by being overly impulsive or capricious with their overt behavior. He may be verbally loose and undisciplined but that may be part of his overall approach to relating to the world. Not being a billionaire, I don't know much about the interpersonal dynamics of that role.
Having Hill-O-Lies, with all of her stipulated personality problems (one of which is called her husband) and all of the information we have gotten from reliable sources such as Dick Morris, et al. From my POV there is absolutely no possible way that I would trust her to administrate the role of commander-in-chief of the military with responsibility or ethical temperament.
Frankly, the fact that some people believe that there is significant evidence that Trump is in any way a significantly greater risk as CIC of the military than Hill-O-Lies is astonishing to me. Subtract Trump's verbal faux pas' and locker room crudeness and you are left with what is mostly a record of populism and at least passably responsible management.
-
Verbal behavior is not overt behavior. That is what I say. One does not become a multi-billionaire by being overly impulsive or capricious with their overt behavior. He may be verbally loose and undisciplined but that may be part of his overall approach to relating to the world. Not being a billionaire, I don't know much about the interpersonal dynamics of that role.
Having Hill-O-Lies, with all of her stipulated personality problems (one of which is called her husband) and all of the information we have gotten from reliable sources such as Dick Morris, et al. From my POV there is absolutely no possible way that I would trust her to administrate the role of commander-in-chief of the military with responsibility or ethical temperament.
Frankly, the fact that some people believe that there is significant evidence that Trump is in any way a significantly greater risk as CIC of the military than Hill-O-Lies is astonishing to me. Subtract Trump's verbal faux pas' and locker room crudeness and you are left with what is mostly a record of populism and at least passably responsible management.
"Verbal behaviour is not overt behaviour?" Horse manure. Threaten a cop some time. See how that works out.
Trump has already demonstrated he will launch a full scale attack against someone before he finds out the facts, and when the facts show he hit the wrong target, he lies about that and doubles down. The behaviour is there for all to see. That is a serious character defect, especially when weapons, the lives of our troops and even our citizenry are involved.
As for money, apparently one becomes a multibillionaire by screwing contractors who worked for you who are too small to fight back, and when the poor bastards finally settle for a fraction of what they were owed, making them sign an NDI that lets you sue them if they break it so the word doesn't get out and you can go screw some more contractors.
Hell, If I didn't pay my bills, I'd be filthy rich, too. Filthy being the operative term.
And a significant proportion of the Republican voters follow this man because they believe what he says, and they don't have it in writing, which would mean nothing if they did.
John 11:35
-
Look at the way he's run his campaign, LFL. He can't stay on message, he's constantly changing advisors, he's undisciplined, he responds to the bait laid by his opponents, he indulges in petty feuds, he shorts his creditors.
Tell me you want someone like this sort as this nation's President?!
I acknowledge Trump's success and his business acumen. I acknowledge he's found a populist message that resonates. I respect the suffering of Trump's base in the face of a pitiless global economy. Whatever you may think of the message, it needs a new messenger
Sorry, LFL, and with no hard feelings - Trump is too unstable to be President.
-
Sorry, LFL, and with no hard feelings - Trump is too unstable to be President.
@Jazzhead
I look at his family, his children, his businesses and I do not see unstable at all. I see great success.
-
The Moral/Philosophical dimensions are an essential part of choosing who I will give my approval to as a head of state, especially when that person is to represent all my country stands for for the next however many years they are in office, because they will represent to other nations the moral and philosophical dimensions of a country that is considered 'the leader of the free world'.
@LateForLunch
@Smokin Joe , It really comes as no surprise to me that I am once again in broad agreement with your position, albeit with even more emphasis.
Indeed moral principle is necessarily the primary principle of them all. If one is of a low character, subject to changing winds and emotions, prone to lying and vindictiveness, How can one trust a single thing put forth as true? He can promise the world, the sun and the moon, but what does one use as a guarantee against that promise, if one cannot take the man at his word?
FIRST, I must know I can believe a man. Then I can guarantee his promise against his record - That he keeps his word, must necessarily be in that record, and it will be, if he is true.
THEN and ONLY THEN, can one move on to the rest of the principles of Conservatism, having established trust in the man's honor.
Needless to say, I find no value in Trump's promises, as he has proven himself to be of remarkably low character, and cannot be trusted in any condition.
I will vote Castle tomorrow.
-
BTW, Great article @massadvj
Well tailored and thought out.
However, it does little to change my mind.
I remain exactly where I was when Trump threw his hat in the ring:
Rule #1: A man of low character cannot be trusted.
One can use all the turd-polish there is, but that fact remains. If I were to endorse him, what he will do will be done in my name, and I cannot be coerced or cajoled into accepting that responsibility.
Better the enemy outside the gate than the enemy within.
-
You sound really, really angry Invar which is strange because my tone was very civil and contained no anger….
Civil? Oh yes, it is the very epitome of 'civil' when you call people who disagree with you 'fanatics'.
But then, bullies who poke people in their eyes and laugh about their reaction, often feign surprise and exclaim that they didn't do nuffin' wrong when the teach asks how they ended up with a busted face the moment someone has had enough.
I understand both of their anger….Invar may be intensely frustrated because he find no amelioration to his central concerns in voting this year.
You understand jack squat Squanto. I'm tired and angry from you people telling us whom we have to vote for, or ridicule those we are voting for. I'm tired of you people who pretend to be patriots demand everyone vote for Trump or suffer 'punishment' and all the other threats both subtle and direct. I'm tired of you people pretending to psychiatrists and offer the board your Holiday Inn Express evaluation of everyone who is not voting for your prince as being mentally unstable and unfit.
I'm pissed at you Trump militants, because it is not enough for you to let us vote for whom we deem serves our principles best - you have to ridicule, castigate, and insult our principles. You berate and attempt to intimidate and shame us into ceding the board and the election to whom you demand everyone must support and bow down to. You Illustrate that your understanding of liberty is as thin as your skins and no different than the tyrants you people supposedly oppose.
I'm pissed at you - because you exhibit all the qualities of a Class A Jerk, and pretend to hide it under mountainous word salads of adjectives, analysis and prose to mask the insults and attempt to create the illusion you are a reasonable gent - when you are anything but.
None of this crap would have happened if you people would have had the common courtesy to argue the merits or lack thereof of your chosen, and let us vote for whom our conscience dictates rather than ascribe blanket accusations of everything from selfishness and self-righteousness to treason.
There are people on this board who have voiced their plans to vote Trump, including one of the owners without the need for the rebuke you people have begged for nearly every time you post. They understood why a lot of us will not vote as they are - and they did not engage in the efforts to slander, declare us fanatics and so forth. They understood the liberty to let each of us choose as our conscience dictates, and if persuasion of their points would not convince - they were content enough to simply recognize our choice is as valid as theirs to make.
Not so for you and yours. You wouldn't take their example to heart, even when asked to. No - somehow Trump's faithful have convinced themselves we are an enemy to be fought and hunted and punished and 'held responsible if Trump loses'.
The anger is because of the behavior of people like you, it had nothing to do with the fact we had two bozos foisted on the public as our 'only choice'. It had everything to do with your posts and responses to everyone who is not voting for your prince.
I do not give a crap if you vote for Trump. I'm not.
-
JPSB may be feeling an equal measure of frustrated rage for different reasons, in that the anti-Trumpsters have realized the absolute best hopes of the democrats and the absolute worst fears of the Trump supporters in taking what appears to be an unshakably strident stance against any consideration of accepting Trump as a viable alternative to Hill-O-Lies, even against what appears to he, I and others, strong evidence to support the possibility that he might be just that.
Well I just don't like being called a punk, soon you will find out that that particular poster is a really nasty person. Constantly playing the victim with industrial level of fake outrage. I try to be civil, some of the NeverTrumper here don't. After the election I will have nothing to do with them.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPN3Fv2aJhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPN3Fv2aJhE)
lol
Hopefully, once people get over their hurt feelings and anger of what will happen tonight this will be the case in the next year. Although this election has been full of surprises so we will see what happens tonight
On the very basic level, both Clinton and Trump are bad for our economy and fiscal situation
-
Yesterday the financial markets around the world 'voted' for Hillary. Within moments of Comey's latest letter to Congress the US stock market futures rose 250 pts.
-
@Jazzhead
I look at his family, his children, his businesses and I do not see unstable at all. I see great success.
Not only do #NeverTrumpers indulge themselves in false narratives about Mr. Trump, they haven't even the slightest curiosity that they might possibly be trading in lies.
But, this is politics. I understand how the game is played.
Go Trump-Pence! On to Victory!
-
This may be the most dispiriting election of my lifetime, but this morning the sun rose gloriously in a clear sky, with the crisp dry air making a showcase of God's creation. I walked the half-mile to my voting place, marveling at the incongruity of it all. Such gloom in the midst of such beauty.
I've kept my mind open to the end, a lifetime's history of party loyalty put to the test. But here in Pennsylvania, the luxury of neutrality just doesn't exist; the sleep of the just (if such sleep there be) will require me to first take a stand. As I turned off the main road to the country lane where the stone memorial to the dead of the Great War houses our town's polling place, I took out the Wall Street Journal tucked under my arm and thought, maybe there's a germ of inspiration here. I'd seen Gary Johnson's billboard this weekend, going down to Maryland to visit my dying father: "A wasted vote is a vote that you don't believe in".
Neither my dad or I have ever failed to vote. For my dad, there won't be another one. He voted absentee, but declined to say who for. I didn't press him. We all must live with our families, our communities, and, ultimately, with ourselves.
I read Bret Stephens column, who opined that "moral clarity and moral equivalence have become interchangeable concepts in today's GOP". And this:
What isn't normal is the ease with which so many conservative leaders, political and intellectual, have prostrated themselves before Mr. Trump simply because he won. In July, Dan Senor, a senior advisor to Mitt Romney in 2012, tweeted that he had once commiserated with a Midwestern governor about how unacceptable Mr. Trump was as the GOP nominee. That governor? Mike Pence.
And, finally, this:
Donald Trump is a demagogue. Period. The fervor of his crowds recalls Nasser's Egypt. His convictions are illiberal. His manners are disgusting. His temper is frightening. It ought to have been the job of thoughtful conservatives in this season to point this out, time and again. If they can't do that, what good are they?
Well, I've been pointing it out for a while now. And now is the time for words to be matched with deeds. I voted straight GOP with one exception. I voted to defeat Donald Trump in a swing state. Dad, I hope you understand - you raised me to be this way.
-
BTW, Great article @massadvj
Well tailored and thought out.
However, it does little to change my mind.
I remain exactly where I was when Trump threw his hat in the ring:
Rule #1: A man of low character cannot be trusted.
One can use all the turd-polish there is, but that fact remains. If I were to endorse him, what he will do will be done in my name, and I cannot be coerced or cajoled into accepting that responsibility.
Better the enemy outside the gate than the enemy within.
I have many friends who are voting for Trump (some who even admire him) and many friends who are not. I respect everyone's opinion on this, and have done my best to stay friends with everyone. So put away the turd polish, my friend. You've no need for it.
-
This may be the most dispiriting election of my lifetime, but this morning the sun rose gloriously in a clear sky, with the crisp dry air making a showcase of God's creation. I walked the half-mile to my voting place, marveling at the incongruity of it all. Such gloom in the midst of such beauty.
I've kept my mind open to the end, a lifetime's history of party loyalty put to the test. But here in Pennsylvania, the luxury of neutrality just doesn't exist; the sleep of the just (if such sleep there be) will require me to first take a stand. As I turned off the main road to the country lane where the stone memorial to the dead of the Great War houses our town's polling place, I took out the Wall Street Journal tucked under my arm and thought, maybe there's a germ of inspiration here. I'd seen Gary Johnson's billboard this weekend, going down to Maryland to visit my dying father: "A wasted vote is a vote that you don't believe in".
Neither my dad or I have ever failed to vote. For my dad, there won't be another one. He voted absentee, but declined to say who for. I didn't press him. We all must live with our families, our communities, and, ultimately, with ourselves.
I read Bret Stephens column, who opined that "moral clarity and moral equivalence have become interchangeable concepts in today's GOP". And this:
And, finally, this:
Well, I've been pointing it out for a while now. And now is the time for words to be matched with deeds. I voted straight GOP with one exception. I voted to defeat Donald Trump in a swing state. Dad, I hope you understand - you raised me to be this way.
Twisted. Sure the election is all but over, yet my eyes have been opened to the fact that some of the people who post on this forum are so far out there in their POV about the purpose for voting and about how they make decisions about voting that I feel like they are from another planet. A planet where emotions and defending personal opinions like raptor eggs, are both more important than the best interests of the nation.
-
Twisted. Sure the election is all but over, yet my eyes have been opened to the fact that some of the people who post on this forum are so far out there in their POV about the purpose for voting and about how they make decisions about voting that I feel like they are from another planet. A planet where emotions and defending personal opinions like raptor eggs, are both more important than the best interests of the nation.
You're not the only one who believes that morality and Constitutional principles are "far out there."
The entire Democrat party, and every leftist on the planet agrees with you.
Kudos on the company you keep.....
-
lol
Hopefully, once people get over their hurt feelings and anger of what will happen tonight this will be the case in the next year. Although this election has been full of surprises so we will see what happens tonight
On the very basic level, both Clinton and Trump are bad for our economy and fiscal situation
And even worse for the ethical state of our country.
We could not have a worse situation before us, regardless of the outcome.
-
Twisted. Sure the election is all but over, yet my eyes have been opened to the fact that some of the people who post on this forum are so far out there in their POV about the purpose for voting and about how they make decisions about voting that I feel like they are from another planet. A planet where emotions and defending personal opinions like raptor eggs, are both more important than the best interests of the nation.
LFL, of course I voted consistent with the best interests of the nation, as I see it. Hell, I sure didn't vote in my own best interest. I think Trump is existentially dangerous. I understand you disagree. But your accusation that my motivations are "twisted" is a cheap shot. Shall I call you a partisan whore?
-
LFL, of course I voted consistent with the best interests of the nation, as I see it. Hell, I sure didn't vote in my own best interest. I think Trump is existentially dangerous. I understand you disagree. But your accusation that my motivations are "twisted" is a cheap shot. Shall I call you a partisan whore?
Fair enough. You may call me anything you like except Late for Lunch.(heh thanks for letting my finally use that line).
Since I am a registered non-aligned voter, calling me a partisan anything for voting for a Republican would be (forgive me) almost as dumb as refusing to vote for the most-conservative candidate who can win in a swing state.
I hope also for your own sake (since I assume that you are a decent, hard-working person) that people are more rational and fair-minded in how they appraise your own character and mental fitness than you have been in regard to Donald Trump's.
-
You're not the only one who believes that morality and Constitutional principles are "far out there."
The entire Democrat party, and every leftist on the planet agrees with you.
Kudos on the company you keep.....
So if we would speak of being "far out there" what would we say of someone who ignores the fact that the single central, overriding, obsessive desire of the Democrat party and anti-Trumpsters is to defeat Donald Trump? That little detail has no significance in your appraisal of who is more-similar, I suppose. Right. Sure. Whatever you say, sister.
-
So if we would speak of being "far out there" what would we say of someone who ignores the fact that the single central, overriding, obsessive desire of the Democrat party and anti-Trumpsters is to defeat Donald Trump? That little detail has no significance in your appraisal of who is more-similar, I suppose. Right. Sure. Whatever you say, sister.
None of that changes your stated argument that believing in moral values and Constitutional principles is "far out there."
I do appreciate your valiant attempt to deflect the statement you made to blame me for what you, yourself are doing, but it is an epic fail.
It is you who are cheering for and voting for a corrupt liberal, not we.
You will have to live with your choice to promote liberalism, and I will be able to live with my choice to remain consistent in the values the Republican party once also held.
I'm fine with consistent Biblical and political principles, and your snarky condescension will never make what is wrong, right.
(Incidentally...... the Democrats' job was done when they made sure that Trump won the nomination. He was the media choice for the "Republican" nominee, and they knew their darling Hillary could beat him handily).
-
There is a race in Bergen County, NJ where the dems went to Court to bar the Oath Keepers, an organization dedicated to defending the constitution, as being a terrorist organization and a threat to national security. Thank g-d the Judge would have none of it. Think about where we are at this moment when the dems go to Court to ban this group for daring to stand for defending the constitution. Bergen County is one of the most corrupt counties in NJ. Next to Hudson County, that is.
-
But your accusation that my motivations are "twisted" is a cheap shot. Shall I call you a partisan whore?
LFL is just demonstrating how civil and magnanimous he is compared to the rest of us 'far out there', 'twisted fanatics'….'sister'.
-
I hope also for your own sake (since I assume that you are a decent, hard-working person) that people are more rational and fair-minded in how they appraise your own character and mental fitness than you have been in regard to Donald Trump's.
My appraisal is based on my observation of how he's run his campaign: He can't stay on message, he's constantly changing advisors, he's undisciplined, he foolishly responds to the bait laid by his opponents, he indulges in petty feuds, he shorts his creditors.
I've waited for months for Trump to stop acting like a petulant, distracted child and show himself worthy of the office he seeks. It's now Election Day and time's up.
-
None of that changes your stated argument that believing in moral values and Constitutional principles is "far out there."
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never posted anything even remotely close to that on any thread anywhere. If you believe I have then you are trying to put words in my mouth because I am as strident a Federalist Papers-quoting Originalist-Constututiunalist as ever lived. Do you have me confused with someone else? Maybe time for another cup of coffee, sister?
BTW, I happen to know that the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about there being any virtue in throwing your vote away on matters of "principle" - that being said, what's done is done, whatever makes you feel better about what you have done is tiki with me.
I don't doubt for a minute that you are a decent human being Musiclady. That you and I disagree about the Trump issue is regrettable but it is in the past now. It is what it is, as one of my bosses liked to say about unpleasant things which cannot be changed.
I can live with my decision to give God a chance to work and take a chance that Trump will not be as bad as Hill-O-Lies. I hope that you and all of the other Never Trumpsters can do the same and forgive yourselves for what you have done as I have largely already forgiven you (though I have some concerns about your collective ability to remain thinking-centered in your day-to-day lives, especially where you believe that matters of "principle" are involved).
-
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never posted anything even remotely close to that on any thread anywhere. If you believe I have then you are trying to put words in my mouth because I am as strident a Federalist Papers-quoting Originalist-Constututiunalist as ever lived. Do you have me confused with someone else? Maybe time for another cup of coffee, sister?
BTW, I happen to know that the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about there being any virtue in throwing your vote away on matters of "principle" - that being said, what's done is done, whatever makes you feel better about what you have done is tiki with me.
I don't doubt for a minute that you are a decent human being Musiclady. That you and I disagree about the Trump issue is regrettable but it is in the past now. It is what it is, as one of my bosses liked to say about unpleasant things which cannot be changed.
I can live with my decision to give God a chance to work and take a chance that Trump will not be as bad as Hill-O-Lies. I hope that you and all of the other Never Trumpsters can do the same and forgive yourselves for what you have done as I have largely already forgiven you (though I have some concerns about your collective ability to remain thinking-centered in your day-to-day lives, especially where you believe that matters of "principle" are involved).
Your continued condescension is duly noted.
I have been a thinking-centered Conservative my entire adult life, and that quality is what has made me refuse to vote for a hard core corrupt, amoral liberal like Trump.
The only "thrown away" vote is for a person who doesn't share a single value, either moral or political that either you, or your former party believe.
I am not throwing away my vote in the least. If I voted for Trump, my vote would be tossed in a pile of swill, and my "thinking-centered" philosophy will not allow me to do that.
You feel free to go around crusading for liberal Trump, if you will. And I will continue to be guilt-free for not falling for your propaganda.
-
Your continued condescension is duly noted.
I have been a thinking-centered Conservative my entire adult life, and that quality is what has made me refuse to vote for a hard core corrupt, amoral liberal like Trump.
The only "thrown away" vote is for a person who doesn't share a single value, either moral or political that either you, or your former party believe.
I am not throwing away my vote in the least. If I voted for Trump, my vote would be tossed in a pile of swill, and my "thinking-centered" philosophy will not allow me to do that.
You feel free to go around crusading for liberal Trump, if you will. And I will continue to be guilt-free for not falling for your propaganda.
Madame, I say this with great respect - if you want to look for condescension you need look no further than your own posts. I have candidly stated my opinions and tried to be as respectful as I can in the face of what appears to me to be such - odd, strident, passionate, overly-emotional silliness. If being called "silly" and given rational reasons for it is too much for you to accept, I might suggest that you are a little overly-sensitive to criticism or disagreement.
-
Madame, I say this with great respect - if you want to look for condescension you need look no further than your own posts. I have candidly stated my opinions and tried to be as respectful as I can in the face of what appears to me to be such - odd, strident, passionate, overly-emotional silliness. If being called "silly" and given rational reasons for it is too much for you to accept, I might suggest that you are a little overly-sensitive to criticism or disagreement.
Your continued condescension is duly noted.
Continue on your pro-liberal quest. More power to you.
I remain who I have always been........ a thoughtful, not emotional, conservative with moral values that are not malleable.
If that bothers you (and it clearly does......... thus your dripping condescension), so be it. I can't do anything for you.
-
Your continued condescension is duly noted.
Continue on your pro-liberal quest. More power to you.
I remain who I have always been........ a thoughtful, not emotional, conservative with moral values that are not malleable.
If that bothers you (and it clearly does......... thus your dripping condescension), so be it. I can't do anything for you.
My goodness. If you call refusal to agree with you or (forgive me) kiss your behind "condescension" then I guess I'll have to live with that.
"Let it just die" - Heavy Metal Magazine
-
I am as strident a Federalist Papers-quoting Originalist-Constututiunalist as ever lived.
Says the one pimping a lifelong NYC liberal Democrat who funded and praised the Clintons (and other overt Communists 3 years ago) before running as a Republican, whereby he trashed the GOP and it's Conservatives more vociferously than anything he flung at The Mao Pantsuit.
Forgive us (or not) that we do not believe your claim to be a strident Federalist Paper-quoting Originalist Constitutionalist.
Your fruits do not match.
-
My goodness. If you call refusal to agree with you or (forgive me) kiss your behind "condescension" than I guess I'll have to live with that.
"Let it just die" - Heavy Metal Magazine
And yet, you won't.
btw, I'd rather die than have you anywhere NEAR my "behind."
That's part of what having moral principles means, son...... :seeya:
-
Says the one pimping a lifelong NYC liberal Democrat who funded and praised the Clintons (and other overt Communists 3 years ago) before running as a Republican, whereby he trashed the GOP and it's Conservatives more vociferously than anything he flung at The Mao Pantsuit.
Forgive us (or not) that we do not believe your claim to be a strident Federalist Paper-quoting Originalist Constitutionalist.
Your fruits do not match.
hah hah Whatever. Construct whatever elaborate, soaring architectures of rationalizations make you feel better about what you have done but please leave me out of it if you can, Invar I have no quarrel with you and have mostly forgiven the anti-Trumpsters for what they have done. However if reconciliation with people who are mostly in agreement with your policy ideas (but only disagree on the best means to accomplish them) means nothing to you, then there could not be much more glaring evidence that you are not a genuine conservative, but rather a free-wheeling doctrinaire egotist who is only really offended or upset when people disagree with them strongly.
Hate
If you wanna hate
If it keeps you safe
If it makes you brave! - Soundgarten
-
And yet, you won't.
btw, I'd rather die than have you anywhere NEAR my "behind."
That's part of what having moral principles means, son...... :seeya:
If you say it, madame. At least we can agree on the belief that moral principles are the best guide for living. I will take that at the very least, as a good foundation for reconciliation with fellow, self-described conservatives.
-
Construct whatever elaborate, soaring architectures of rationalizations make you feel better about what you have done but please leave me out of it if you can, Invar
Oh no, no no. You don't get off that easy bub. Not gonna do so as long as you keep acting the condescending arrogant bully towards our lady friends and other members here.
I have no quarrel with you and have mostly forgiven the anti-Trumpsters for what they have done.
How mighty white of you. You can shove that sentiment "what anti-Trumpeters have done" bullshiite. The consequences of Trump are yours, and his alone. I do not recall any of us asking for your "forgiveness" because we upheld our principles despite the threats, the ridicule, the condescension and the snark. What we did was what our consciences and principles dictated. You and yours decided to go to war on those things. We've done nothing to warrant your accusation of sin. Just the opposite.
However if reconciliation with people who are mostly in agreement with your policy ideas (but only disagree on the best means to accomplish them) means nothing to you, then there could not be much more glaring evidence that you are not a genuine conservative, but rather a free-wheeling doctrinaire egotist who is only really offended or upset when people disagree with them strongly.
I have no desire to be reconciled to pretend Conservatives pimping lifelong liberals with a litany of Statism and Fascism for policy plans and a penchant for the politics of personal destruction who have publicly declared us to be 'fanatics' and worse.
Hate
If you wanna hate
That's exactly what leftists in the pro-Homo agenda crowd/the Pro-Obama Crowd always declare upon those who oppose their fundamental transformation efforts. Amazing how adept you are at using their same techniques, even if you had to borrow lyrics from a song to apply the sentiments.