The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on July 30, 2019, 12:46:23 pm
-
House GOP fears retirement wave will lead to tsunami
By Reid Wilson - 07/30/19 06:00 AM EDT
House Republicans plotting to win back their majority in Congress fear they are on the brink of a massive wave of retirements that could force them to play defense in a high-stakes presidential election year.
Three House Republicans said last week they would not seek another term next year, catching party strategists off guard. Those announcements came earlier than in a typical election cycle, when members who are ready to hang up their voting cards usually wait until after the August recess or after the Christmas break.
Republicans in Congress strategizing to win back the House say the rush to the exits reflects the depressing reality of life in the minority and a pessimistic view of the GOP’s chances of regaining the majority.
more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455201-house-gop-fears-retirement-wave-will-lead-to-tsunami
-
What, no Trump re-election wave?
Let's face reality, folks - Trump as the nominee drags down the GOP ticket. This has always been my greatest fear - not so much that a Democrat wins the Presidency, but that the GOP loses its Senate majority and the Dems can pillage at will.
-
What, no Trump re-election wave?
Let's face reality, folks - Trump as the nominee drags down the GOP ticket. This has always been my greatest fear - not so much that a Democrat wins the Presidency, but that the GOP loses its Senate majority and the Dems can pillage at will.
Actually @Jazzhead you are the one that needs to face reality. President Trump has brought focus to several issues plaguing our country; illegal immigration, inner-city blight, the economy and relationships around the globe. He has managed to bring jobs back, drastically reduce unemployment and cut some taxes. He recently has made some headway on the border wall and getting Guatemala to sign as a safe country for asylum. He's taken the stranglehold off that Bammycare had on jobs. He's been able to draw focus to the pettiness, corruption, lies and manipulation of the left. One thing is for certain he is not afraid to call out the corruption of the left; perhaps he does so in a crass and not so polished way, but he does make his point. He puts them in their place and rightfully so.
People age as do our Congressmen and if they want to retire, well, that becomes a reality too. People retire.
You keep bringing up Trump as the nominee. Again, the reality is, that there is NO one challenging him. Why? Because no one wants to walk into the hornets nest that the DEMS continue to build. Secondly, who does the GOP have that IS willing to run?? No one. No one is running. No one is running because he's done some good in a short period of time in spite of all the bull coming from the left and the MSM and if they thought they could do better, they would challenge him.
I think I have been very vocal about my disappointments in some of the things Trump has or has not done. At the end of the day, either we vote for him to stop the insanity coming from the left, or we sit back and keep hoping for something that's not reality.
-
Actually @Jazzhead you are the one that needs to face reality. President Trump has brought focus to several issues plaguing our country; illegal immigration, inner-city blight, the economy and relationships around the globe. He has managed to bring jobs back, drastically reduce unemployment and cut some taxes. He recently has made some headway on the border wall and getting Guatemala to sign as a safe country for asylum. He's taken the stranglehold off that Bammycare had on jobs. He's been able to draw focus to the pettiness, corruption, lies and manipulation of the left. One thing is for certain he is not afraid to call out the corruption of the left; perhaps he does so in a crass and not so polished way, but he does make his point. He puts them in their place and rightfully so.
People age as do our Congressmen and if they want to retire, well, that becomes a reality too. People retire.
You keep bringing up Trump as the nominee. Again, the reality is, that there is NO one challenging him. Why? Because no one wants to walk into the hornets nest that the DEMS continue to build. Secondly, who does the GOP have that IS willing to run?? No one. No one is running. No one is running because he's done some good in a short period of time in spite of all the bull coming from the left and the MSM and if they thought they could do better, they would challenge him.
I think I have been very vocal about my disappointments in some of the things Trump has or has not done. At the end of the day, either we vote for him to stop the insanity coming from the left, or we sit back and keep hoping for something that's not reality.
Actually Jazzhead is correct. Trump is VERY polarizing. I have friends that love him and friends that hate him with a vengeance. Very very few are lukewarm about him. I have the same fear that he/she has.
-
Actually Jazzhead is correct. Trump is VERY polarizing. I have friends that love him and friends that hate him with a vengeance. Very very few are lukewarm about him. I have the same fear that he/she has.
Reality IS, at the end of the day, either you vote for Trump to stop the insanity of the left, or you sit back, whine and moan hoping for someone to challenge him. The reality IS no one is challenging him period.
I am not trying to sell you or anyone else on Trump. I'm simply pointing out the reality.
-
Actually Jazzhead is correct. Trump is VERY polarizing. I have friends that love him and friends that hate him with a vengeance. Very very few are lukewarm about him. I have the same fear that he/she has.
I want our candidate to oppose the left, and in the current media environment there is NO way to effectively oppose the left and not be 'polarizing'.
@Jazzhead says it all the time - he likes Trump's results but dislikes Trump. Apparently he'd rather do without the results and be rid of him. This is irrational.
-
I want our candidate to oppose the left, and in the current media environment there is NO way to effectively oppose the left and not be 'polarizing'.
@Jazzhead says it all the time - he likes Trump's results but dislikes Trump. Apparently he'd rather do without the results and be rid of him. This is irrational.
Of course the left can be opposed without Trump's brand of dog-whistle baiting. Yes, I like many of Trump's policies but it is all for naught if the man is so deliberately polarizing that he drives away independents with his wearying bullshit. And those who oppose the President will also likely oppose the election of GOP Congressmen, leading to the perverse result that Trump has singlehandedly created a radicalized and united Democratic party, one that will likely take ALL the reins of government and spell disaster for conservatism.
Trump must, like LBJ in 1968, step down as the nominee to save both to save his own legacy and to ensure a future for his priorities.
-
Of course the left can be opposed without Trump's brand of dog-whistle baiting. Yes, I like many of Trump's policies but it is all for naught if the man is so deliberately polarizing that he drives away independents with his wearying bullshit. And those who oppose the President will also likely oppose the election of GOP Congressmen, leading to the perverse result that Trump has singlehandedly created a radicalized and united Democratic party, one that will likely take ALL the reins of government and spell disaster for conservatism.
Trump must, like LBJ in 1968, step down as the nominee to save both to save his own legacy and to ensure a future for his priorities.
What you see as 'Trump's wearying bullshit' others - me - see as the media's wearying bullshit. You're gonna get this no matter who the candidate is - the only way to avoid it is to not say things that need saying.
Since this battle has to be fought in the court of public opinion any candidate of our's who avoids these topics in an effort to be 'non-polarizing' are as worthless as tits on a boar. And we've got enough of those kind already.
-
False choice. This issue isn't whether to fight. It is whether to fight smart. You fight to persuade, not alienate.
-
Reality IS, at the end of the day, either you vote for Trump to stop the insanity of the left, or you sit back, whine and moan hoping for someone to challenge him. The reality IS no one is challenging him period.
I am not trying to sell you or anyone else on Trump. I'm simply pointing out the reality.
I support what Trump is doing and I'll vote for him in 2020, but...would I invite him over for supper....probably not. He's just a very caustic individual.
-
GOP fears everything including their own shadow and THAT is the damned problem!
-
False choice. This issue isn't whether to fight. It is whether to fight smart. You fight to persuade, not alienate.
The left has been 'targeting, personalizing and polarizing' for years. This may not have been a smart strategy, but it sure as hell has been an effective one, judging from the fact they have gone from the fringe to damn near defining the mainstream in a few short decades.
-
Trump must, like LBJ in 1968, step down as the nominee to save both to save his own legacy and to ensure a future for his priorities.
The country was in extreme domestic and foreign turmoil, that year. We’re not in a major conflict, with the same type of civil unrest. Also, what you propose would require Trump to have some vision beyond the here and now. He’s incapable of that and it’s why he seeks the instant gratification of the live crowd, during the rallies.
-
What, no Trump re-election wave?
Since Republicans lost the house after Trump became president, I don't think congressional Republicans have benefitted all that much from his presidency. Just as electing Trump did not allow Republicans to retain control of the house, re-electing him will not assure Republicans take back the house.
And it could be Republicans will lose the senate too.
-
False choice. This issue isn't whether to fight. It is whether to fight smart. You fight to persuade, not alienate.
Ok @Jazzhead what do you propose? No one is challenging Trump, so what do you propose? Everyone sit home, pout and not vote? Vote DEM? Vote Independent? DEMS ARE fighting Trump tooth and nail; personally, I think that speaks volumes.
-
One of the Never Trump talking pundits (G will or comrade Krystoff) said there is a double standard for Trump.? WTF? Like the rat party lives and dies by the "double Standard".
F
Trump is a game changer the likes of which the left has never seen. None of there normal shaming tactics work. It is a beautiful thing to watch. It is a study in rat frustration.
-
Of course the left can be opposed without Trump's brand of dog-whistle baiting. Yes, I like many of Trump's policies but it is all for naught if the man is so deliberately polarizing that he drives away independents with his wearying bullshit. And those who oppose the President will also likely oppose the election of GOP Congressmen, leading to the perverse result that Trump has singlehandedly created a radicalized and united Democratic party, one that will likely take ALL the reins of government and spell disaster for conservatism.
Trump must, like LBJ in 1968, step down as the nominee to save both to save his own legacy and to ensure a future for his priorities.
Oh for the love of God @Jazzhead unless he steps down for health or personal reasons, why would he? He has made some headway, accomplished a good economy, put people back to work, etc. and still maintains a significant base. I realize you don't like the guy and I agree his character is "iffy" ... but no one is stepping up to challenge him and do you really think that someone is going to? Time is ticking away and most who decide to run have formed exploratory committees, etc., 18 months to 2 years in advance.
-
Ok @Jazzhead what do you propose? No one is challenging Trump, so what do you propose? Everyone sit home, pout and not vote? Vote DEM? Vote Independent? DEMS ARE fighting Trump tooth and nail; personally, I think that speaks volumes.
You are better than that. People standing upon principle are not pouting.
What is it you expect to gain from such language?
Because I assure you - Your words do not benefit your cause.
-
I support what Trump is doing and I'll vote for him in 2020, but...would I invite him over for supper....probably not. He's just a very caustic individual.
I may not invite him over for supper, but I'd gladly sit down with him and have a cheeseburger at a local burger joint.
-
@The Ghost
Trump may well be re-elected, but if Republicans lose the senate too, it will be the same quagmire we've had during Trump's first term. In other words, if he did zippo during his first term, Trump won't do squat in his second term.
-
One of the Never Trump talking pundits (G will or comrade Krystoff) said there is a double standard for Trump.? WTF? Like the rat party lives and dies by the "double Standard".
F
Trump is a game changer the likes of which the left has never seen. None of there normal shaming tactics work. It is a beautiful thing to watch. It is a study in rat frustration.
That's it right there, @The Ghost.
If you cling to the beliefs that Trump is doing everything "wrong," because he isn't doing it the way that it has been done, then you simply can't see what is really going on. With that mindset, it is really easy to just call him an idiot that doesn't know what he is doing...
-
You are better than that. People standing upon principle are not pouting.
What is it you expect to gain from such language?
Because I assure you - Your words do not benefit your cause.
Ok ... I'm trying to figure out what @Jazzhead proposes?? Obviously no one is challenging Trump and he is stating that Trump MUST step down. Even IF for some reason he did step down, who has the $$, the name recognition, the ground game, and the attention of the MSM to be able to rise above all the mud slinging, accusations and lies from the left and WIN the oval office?
-
Oh for the love of God @Jazzhead unless he steps down for health or personal reasons, why would he? He has made some headway, accomplished a good economy, put people back to work, etc. and still maintains a significant base. I realize you don't like the guy and I agree his character is "iffy" ... but no one is stepping up to challenge him and do you really think that someone is going to? Time is ticking away and most who decide to run have formed exploratory committees, etc., 18 months to 2 years in advance.
I see Trump as someone cognizant of his legacy, and willing to listen to hard advice from others. He's certainly backed away from certain positions on the advice of others. He is also a true citizen President and, I believe, an accidental one who was as surprised as anyone else when he won. I can easily see him as lacking the megalomaniacal bent of someone who seeks power for his own sake. I think he believes he's done well for nation and wants his policies to continue. And I also believe that there's a side of him that wants to get back to his family and businesses.
What I can foresee is Mitch McConnell meeting with the President and explaining that the prospects for the Senate are very dire, and that the best way to retain Trump's policies and priorities is to pass the baton to a successor who can address and defend those policies on the merits without all the emotional baggage of the Trump-hate soap opera. And in the process, save the Senate and perhaps even flip the House. The number of Senate seats we need to defend in 2020 is very similar to the lopsided number the Dems had to defend in 2018. Even if Trump is re-elected, if the Senate is lost the next four years will be hell for him. The time to escape is now - the economy is good, and Trump's issues - immigration, growth, conservative judges - are potential winners. With a new standard bearer - a Trump ally like Chaney or Pence or Haley - Trump can retire in satisfaction and allow what he started to continue, grow and thrive.
-
@Jazzhead
I wish what you're saying is true, but I don't think it is. Don't see Trump abandoning his re-election plans. He's enjoying himself too much as preside t to give it up unless he has to.
And I can't see Trump and McConnell meeting, let alone Trump taking any advice Mc Connell may give him. From the start, Trump alienated his own party. Maybe some Republicans are on his side, but I think that's out of fear of losing re-election when it's their time. Or they are looking for some other benefit from Trump, such as a job in his administration. McConnell might say a few good things about Trump sometimes, but the two are not buds.
-
What I can foresee is Mitch McConnell meeting with the President and explaining that the prospects for the Senate are very dire, and that the best way to retain Trump's policies and priorities is to pass the baton to a successor who can address and defend those policies on the merits without all the emotional baggage of the Trump-hate soap opera....
Exactly how are you foreseeing that? Where is there a shred of evidence that McConnell is even considering doing that, and hasn't concluded that any such effort is likely to lead to Trump lumping McConnell himself in with guys like Flake?
You're inventing a scenario that seems to you like it has a chance of succeeding. The problem is that there is zero evidence that McConnell or anyone else in power agrees that the effort should be made.
-
You are better than that. People standing upon principle are not pouting.
What is it you expect to gain from such language?
Because I assure you - Your words do not benefit your cause.
The only problem with standing upon principle is.... sometimes you find that all you have left to stand on...
is a steaming, heaping pile of ashes (and I'm being nice here).
If you sit out 2020 and don't vote against the left (I know, I know... let's not go there again).....
you'll have only yourself and others like you to blame for what you end up with. (think.. even worse than "ashes")
-
@Jazzhead
McConnell might say a few good things about Trump sometimes, but the two are not buds.
Trump will turn, instantly, on anyone who suggests to him that he should not run for re-election for the good of the party. Maybe Ivanka or his wife could get away with it, but no chance in hell any Republican who attempted that wouldn't become No. 1 on Trump's Twitter shitlist overnight. And a guy like McConnell knows that if that happens, it would tear the party apart much worse than just letting Trump play out the string.
-
I see Trump as someone cognizant of his legacy, and willing to listen to hard advice from others. He's certainly backed away from certain positions on the advice of others. He is also a true citizen President and, I believe, an accidental one who was as surprised as anyone else when he won. I can easily see him as lacking the megalomaniacal bent of someone who seeks power for his own sake. I think he believes he's done well for nation and wants his policies to continue. And I also believe that there's a side of him that wants to get back to his family and businesses.
What I can foresee is Mitch McConnell meeting with the President and explaining that the prospects for the Senate are very dire, and that the best way to retain Trump's policies and priorities is to pass the baton to a successor who can address and defend those policies on the merits without all the emotional baggage of the Trump-hate soap opera. And in the process, save the Senate and perhaps even flip the House. The number of Senate seats we need to defend in 2020 is very similar to the lopsided number the Dems had to defend in 2018. Even if Trump is re-elected, if the Senate is lost the next four years will be hell for him. The time to escape is now - the economy is good, and Trump's issues - immigration, growth, conservative judges - are potential winners. With a new standard bearer - a Trump ally like Chaney or Pence or Haley - Trump can retire in satisfaction and allow what he started to continue, grow and thrive.
A standard bearer like Cheney or Pence or Haley --- not thrilled with Pence, but Cheney or Haley might be ok. Again, would they be able to withstand and survive the mud slinging, lies and accusations from the left? Secondly, and most importantly, last time I checked neither are running for President. So wishful thinking is just that, wishful thinking.
I completely understand what you are saying and understand your fears and concerns about Trump. The reality is again, he isn't stepping down; and if he should at the last minute or within the next six months then the GOP is royally screwed as there is no one to replace him that has the kind of $$$ nor the ground game that is going to be needed to defeat the left. That is reality.
-
The only problem with standing upon principle is.... sometimes you find that all you have left to stand on...
is a steaming, heaping pile of ashes (and I'm being nice here).
If you sit out 2020 and don't vote against the left (I know, I know... let's not go there again).....
you'll have only yourself and others like you to blame for what you end up with. (think.. even worse than "ashes")
I can't think of any DEM running that doesn't go against the very principles that I stand for...so again...I will vote AGAINST the radical left and vote Trump in order to stop them.
-
What, no Trump re-election wave?
Let's face reality, folks - Trump as the nominee drags down the GOP ticket. This has always been my greatest fear - not so much that a Democrat wins the Presidency, but that the GOP loses its Senate majority and the Dems can pillage at will.
@Jazzhead
You can't be THAT afraid of it or you wouldn't be here every day making negative posts about Trump in order to help it happen.
-
...
If you sit out 2020 and don't vote against the left (I know, I know... let's not go there again).....
you'll have only yourself and others like you to blame for what you end up with.
...
Well, I din't know about @roamer_1 but I am not going to take responsibility for a Dem takeover of the presidency, house and possibly the senate. I will blame Republicans, including Trump, for lying to us voters and making promises they had no intention of keeping. They sat on their fat rears and did nothing for years -- even before Trump came along -- and now they want us to vote for them again? Sorry. I won't be fooled again.
If Republicans would get their act together, agree on a uniform platform that they all agree on that reflects what voters want, and put forth candidates voters would elect -- yes, I would vote Republican again. But I don't see any of that happening anytime soon.
And voting for Republicans does not "save us" from the Democrats. Republicans won't admit it, but they want many of the same things the Democrats want. They just want to get those things at a slower pace.
-
The only problem with standing upon principle is.... sometimes you find that all you have left to stand on...
is a steaming, heaping pile of ashes (and I'm being nice here).
So principle - TRUTH - can be discarded?
That is just nonsense.
If you sit out 2020 and don't vote against the left (I know, I know... let's not go there again).....
you'll have only yourself and others like you to blame for what you end up with. (think.. even worse than "ashes")
I will sit it out, unless there is a Conservative to vote for.
I have no dog in this hunt. There is not a single principled thing being defended here.
This is the same stupid 'lesser evil' bullshit I get fed every election year.
NO SALE.
Give me something to vote *FOR*
-
@Jazzhead you still haven't proposed what can be done. All you are stating is what you hope happens and who you hope runs against Trump. Big difference between what is actually happening and what you would like to see happen.
Are you involved in any campaign push/ground game to get Haley or Cheney nominated; perhaps they are planning to announce in the near future and you are privy to that information??
-
Well, I din't know about @roamer_1 but I am not going to take responsibility for a Dem takeover of the presidency, house and possibly the senate. I will blame Republicans, including Trump, for lying to us voters and making promises they had no intention of keeping. They sat on their fat rears and did nothing for years -- even before Trump came along -- and now they want us to vote for them again? Sorry. I won't be fooled again.
If Republicans would get their act together, agree on a uniform platform that they all agree on that reflects what voters want, and put forth candidates voters would elect -- yes, I would vote Republican again. But I don't see any of that happening anytime soon.
And voting for Republicans does not "save us" from the Democrats. Republicans won't admit it, but they want many of the same things the Democrats want. They just want to get those things at a slower pace.
That's right. Right on the money.
-
So principle - TRUTH - can be discarded?
That is just nonsense.
I will sit it out, unless there is a Conservative to vote for.
I have no dog in this hunt. There is not a single principled thing being defended here.
This is the same stupid 'lesser evil' bullshit I get fed every election year.
NO SALE.
Give me something to vote *FOR*
Well, in that case I am voting for low unemployment, stronger economy, some headway at the border, tax cuts, retention of the 2A, and a pro-Israel stance.
-
Well, in that case I am voting for low unemployment, stronger economy, some headway at the border, tax cuts, retention of the 2A, and a pro-Israel stance.
Nothing more than justification... candy thrown from the clown at the head of the parade.
And the beat goes on.
-
Well, I din't know about @roamer_1 but I am not going to take responsibility for a Dem takeover of the presidency, house and possibly the senate. I will blame Republicans, including Trump, for lying to us voters and making promises they had no intention of keeping. They sat on their fat rears and did nothing for years -- even before Trump came along -- and now they want us to vote for them again? Sorry. I won't be fooled again.
@Applewood
Nothing is ever your fault,is it?
-
Exactly how are you foreseeing that? Where is there a shred of evidence that McConnell is even considering doing that, and hasn't concluded that any such effort is likely to lead to Trump lumping McConnell himself in with guys like Flake?
You're inventing a scenario that seems to you like it has a chance of succeeding. The problem is that there is zero evidence that McConnell or anyone else in power agrees that the effort should be made.
The situation is fluid. Remember, it has only been in the last three weeks that Trump has tweeted for folks to go back to their own countries and denounced an entire city as unfit for human habitation. It is now, just within the last three weeks, that the mainstream media has given up all pretense of respect for the Presidency and concluded that Trump is "racist" and deserves not re-election but prison.
Cannot folks see that this is all becoming a fatal distraction from the issues that matter - growth, immigration, conservative judges? We can win on these issues - but can we do so through the dense fog of unrelenting Trump-hate? I want to plant the seed that Trump's nomination and likely defeat is NOT inevitable, and that his reason and legacy CAN be appealed to.
I think sometimes that folks are resigned to riding this runaway train all the way to the bottom. That's nuts. It is time to suggest to the President that he has done well by changing the nation's direction, but that a new leader is needed to prevent a reaction that will destroy all that he has accomplished.
-
And I can't see Trump and McConnell meeting, let alone Trump taking any advice Mc Connell may give him. From the start, Trump alienated his own party.
Except that’s exactly what he did, during the Camp David meeting, and January 2018. He swore off insurgent candidates, then went all in with establishment types for the midterm strategy. Back in May 2017, he was threatening the freedom caucus with primary challenges. Now, those remaining are among his biggest supporters. The most predictable thing about Weathervane Donny is that he is unpredictable. In the last decade, he’s been on both sides of just about every major issue.
-
The most predictable thing about Weathervane Donny is that he is unpredictable. In the last decade, he’s been on both sides of just about every major issue.
That's right! And it is why I do not believe that Trump cannot be appealed to. What he wants is his legacy. To get it, that legacy must be preserved.
-
The situation is fluid. Remember, it has only been in the last three weeks that Trump has tweeted for folks to go back to their own countries and denounced an entire city as unfit for human habitation. It is now, just within the last three weeks, that the mainstream media has given up all pretense of respect for the Presidency and concluded that Trump is "racist" and deserves not re-election but prison.
Cannot folks see that this is all becoming a fatal distraction from the issues that matter - growth, immigration, conservative judges? We can win on these issues - but can we do so through the dense fog of unrelenting Trump-hate? I want to plant the seed that Trump's nomination and likely defeat is NOT inevitable, and that his reason and legacy CAN be appealed to.
I think sometimes that folks are resigned to riding this runaway train all the way to the bottom. That's nuts. It is time to suggest to the President that he has done well by changing the nation's direction, but that a new leader is needed to prevent a reaction that will destroy all that he has accomplished.
"The press has given up all pretense of respect" for Trump.
Honestly?
-
So principle - TRUTH - can be discarded?
That is just nonsense.
I will sit it out, unless there is a Conservative to vote for.
I have no dog in this hunt. There is not a single principled thing being defended here.
This is the same stupid 'lesser evil' bullshit I get fed every election year.
NO SALE.
Give me something to vote *FOR*
@roamer_1
I think you are delusional and live in a fantasy world.
None the less,your "vision" DOES qualify as a religion because it does not preach mandatory worship,military conquest,or the creation of a religious police state. Which Islam does and has always done.
See? It's not hard to determine the difference between an actual religion,and a police state disguised as a religion.
-
@roamer_1
I think you are delusional and live in a fantasy world.
None the less,your "vision" DOES qualify as a religion because it does not preach mandatory worship,military conquest,or the creation of a religious police state. Which Islam does and has always done.
See? It's not hard to determine the difference between an actual religion,and a police state disguised as a religion.
@sneakypete
What the hell are you goin on about now?
-
Well, in that case I am voting for low unemployment, stronger economy, some headway at the border, tax cuts, retention of the 2A, and a pro-Israel stance.
Well, that rosy economy is already showing signs of falling apart. Not that I've seen the low employment in my area that everyone talks about.
Neither Trump nor either of the two major parties give a flying fig about the border problem. If they did, they would have done something by now.
Tax cuts? What happened to that? There was a tax tweak that didn't benefit most of the people I know. We were promised more would come, but I haven't seen it yet and I doubt we will.
Second Amendment? Well, I'm not so sure either party cares about that. There have been "bipartisan gun control measures" floating around. Look for some kind of gun control , no matter which party is in charge.
And how pro-Israel is this country if it's selling arms to Saudi Arabia?
You are looking for things to happen that have been promised for a long time. If these promises haven't been kept by now, what makes you think if Trump and the Republicans remain in charge or get back in charge that those promises will be kept?
-
Nothing more than justification... candy thrown from the clown at the head of the parade.
And the beat goes on.
No, those aren't candy, but specific policies that will be continued if the Republicans prevail and abolished if the Dems win. "Priniciple" and a buck fifty gets you a Diet Coke. The starving man wants a full loaf, but can survive on just a half. If the Dems sweep the government, they will be in a position to impose socialism and break your back.
At times a pragmatic vote is necessary. But it is still too early to resort to that.
-
Nothing more than justification... candy thrown from the clown at the head of the parade.
And the beat goes on.
??? Are you denying that the economy has been better under Trump than Bammy and that unemployment is down, we still have rights under the 2A and he's taken a pro-stance with Israel?
-
Well, that rosy economy is already showing signs of falling apart. Not that I've seen the low employment in my area that everyone talks about.
Neither Trump nor either of the two major parties give a flying fig about the border problem. If they did, they would have done something by now.
Tax cuts? What happened to that? There was a tax tweak that didn't benefit most of the people I know. We were promised more would come, but I haven't seen it yet and I doubt we will.
Second Amendment? Well, I'm not so sure either party cares about that. There have been "bipartisan gun control measures" floating around. Look for some kind of gun control , no matter which party is in charge.
And how pro-Israel is this country if it's selling arms to Saudi Arabia?
You are looking for things to happen that have been promised for a long time. If these promises haven't been kept by now, what makes you think if Trump and the Republicans remain in charge or get back in charge that those promises will be kept?
pointing-up :yowsa:
-
@Applewood
Nothing is ever your fault,is it?
@sneakypete
No, that would be your hero, Trump.
-
No, those aren't candy, but specific policies that will be continued if the Republicans prevail and abolished if the Dems win. "Priniciple" and a buck fifty gets you a Diet Coke. The starving man wants a full loaf, but can survive on just a half. If the Dems sweep the government, they will be in a position to impose socialism and break your back.
At times a pragmatic vote is necessary. But it is still too early to resort to that.
There is absolutely no denying the fact that Trump has 'rebooted' the economy and brought unemployment down. As far as black unemployment it is the lowest in History; so truly it's not just a matter if 'any' Republican prevails against a DEM.
IF the DEMS sweep government you are absolutely correct; they will impose socialism. That is one of the very reasons why I am voting for Trump -- to prevent that from happening.
-
The situation is fluid. Remember, it has only been in the last three weeks that Trump has tweeted for folks to go back to their own countries and denounced an entire city as unfit for human habitation. It is now, just within the last three weeks, that the mainstream media has given up all pretense of respect for the Presidency and concluded that Trump is "racist" and deserves not re-election but prison.
Wow. The "you're a racist" theme, and the idea that the press had a moral obligation to take sides predated even the election. I honestly can't think of a single mainstream media outlet that now views the President any differently than they viewed him on January 20,2017. They viewed him as a racist from the moment he made the comment about some Mexican illegals, and it's never changed.
Cannot folks see that this is all becoming a fatal distraction from the issues that matter - growth, immigration, conservative judges? We can win on these issues - but can we do so through the dense fog of unrelenting Trump-hate? I want to plant the seed that Trump's nomination and likely defeat is NOT inevitable, and that his reason and legacy CAN be appealed to.
Can you point us all to even one instant where Trump has done a significant mea culpa on anything close to the magnitude of what you're asking here? One instance of him acknowledging that anything he has done since becoming President has been a screw-up? Because that's the first threshhold he'd have to reach before even considering stepping aside. And I see absolutely zero evidence of that.
I think sometimes that folks are resigned to riding this runaway train all the way to the bottom. That's nuts. It is time to suggest to the President that he has done well by changing the nation's direction, but that a new leader is needed to prevent a reaction that will destroy all that he has accomplished.
You keep arguing that Trump needs to see things the way you do. You haven't put forth any evidence -- literally any, at all -- that he actually does see things that way.
-
"The press has given up all pretense of respect" for Trump.
Honestly?
Don't be dishonest and twist my words. I said they have given up all pretense of respect for the Presidency - that is, for the office and what it represents in our Constitutional republic - because of their irrational hatred for a man.
-
Well, that rosy economy is already showing signs of falling apart. Not that I've seen the low employment in my area that everyone talks about.
Neither Trump nor either of the two major parties give a flying fig about the border problem. If they did, they would have done something by now.
Tax cuts? What happened to that? There was a tax tweak that didn't benefit most of the people I know. We were promised more would come, but I haven't seen it yet and I doubt we will.
Second Amendment? Well, I'm not so sure either party cares about that. There have been "bipartisan gun control measures" floating around. Look for some kind of gun control , no matter which party is in charge.
And how pro-Israel is this country if it's selling arms to Saudi Arabia?
You are looking for things to happen that have been promised for a long time. If these promises haven't been kept by now, what makes you think if Trump and the Republicans remain in charge or get back in charge that those promises will be kept?
I beg to differ. The economy has been doing great. Unemployment is historically low. The relations with Israel have been rekindled. Last year was the first year in a very long time that my husband and I actually received a tax refund.
Look, I have never been a Trump supporter, but I find myself oddly defending him. Like him or not he IS standing between us and the radical left.
Everyone has to vote their conscience whether it be to abstain, vote for the GOP or vote DEM. Those are the choices. I opt to vote against the radical left.
-
No, those aren't candy, but specific policies that will be continued if the Republicans prevail and abolished if the Dems win. "Priniciple" and a buck fifty gets you a Diet Coke. The starving man wants a full loaf, but can survive on just a half. If the Dems sweep the government, they will be in a position to impose socialism and break your back.
At times a pragmatic vote is necessary. But it is still too early to resort to that.
YES, it IS candy - You can't claim a tax cut and 'roaring' economy, and ignore the principles of a balanced budget and tax cuts offset by spending cuts. Not to mention TRILLIONS more in spending... The PRINCIPLE of the thing is ignored in order to favor a very short term benefit - which without the principle, will become a long, long, long term deficit.
That is candy. That is eating your dessert instead of your supper.
Holy crap, how I wish folks would think things through!
-
Don't be dishonest and twist my words. I said they have given up all pretense of respect for the Presidency - that is, for the office and what it represents in our Constitutional republic - because of their irrational hatred for a man.
Well, the MSM didn't like Bush either. IMHO respect for the Presidency ended when Clinton was impeached and they failed to remove him. It was at that point that the DEMS realized that they weren't going to be held responsible or accountable and they could get away with doing whatever the heck they wanted.
-
@sneakypete
What the hell are you goin on about now?
@roamer_1
Why Islam doesn't qualify as a religion in the US,and some of the things that sits it apart from the beliefs that do qualify as religions.
It's really not all that hard to figure out.
-
??? Are you denying that the economy has been better under Trump than Bammy and that unemployment is down, we still have rights under the 2A and he's taken a pro-stance with Israel?
No, I am denying that it matters.
-
@roamer_1
Why Islam doesn't qualify as a religion in the US,and some of the things that sits it apart from the beliefs that do qualify as religions.
It's really not all that hard to figure out.
@sneakypete
I think you're in the wrong thread, dude.
-
YES, it IS candy - You can't claim a tax cut and 'roaring' economy, and ignore the principles of a balanced budget and tax cuts offset by spending cuts. Not to mention TRILLIONS more in spending... The PRINCIPLE of the thing is ignored in order to favor a very short term benefit - which without the principle, will become a long, long, long term deficit.
That is candy. That is eating your dessert instead of your supper.
Holy crap, how I wish folks would think things through!
I'm trying to remember when there was a balanced budget ... so again ... we're truly left with not voting, voting DEM, or voting GOP. Everyone needs to decide what is best for them.
-
No, I am denying that it matters.
OK...the #1 priority for me has always been the 2A as I believe without it we will have no rights. I don't see that any DEM will leave the 2A untouched. Therefore for me, I have to vote against them period.
-
I'm trying to remember when there was a balanced budget ... so again ... we're truly left with not voting, voting DEM, or voting GOP. Everyone needs to decide what is best for them.
Yeah... Just keep voting for no balanced budget and astronomical spending of borrowed money... That'll fix it. Those rascally Republicans will sure get your message.
-
That's it right there, @The Ghost.
If you cling to the beliefs that Trump is doing everything "wrong," because he isn't doing it the way that it has been done, then you simply can't see what is really going on. With that mindset, it is really easy to just call him an idiot that doesn't know what he is doing...
@EdJames
Bingo, and even that kind of thinking is part of the big ole tar baby, the call for impeachment. .
-
Trump must, like LBJ in 1968, step down as the nominee to save both to save his own legacy and to ensure a future for his priorities.
Actually if Cronkite hadn't lied about the Tet Offensive LBJ wouldn't have stepped down and would have run for another term.
-
OK...the #1 priority for me has always been the 2A as I believe without it we will have no rights. I don't see that any DEM will leave the 2A untouched. Therefore for me, I have to vote against them period.
So what? Tump didn't leave it untouched either. Remember the bump-stock thing that will prove to further erode semi-automatic weapons ownership?
-
@sneakypete
No, that would be your hero, Trump.
@Applewood
ADD? Where have I ever claimed Trump is my hero? Or even that I liked him personally?
This ain't about winning a personality contest,it is about keeping the Bill of Rights as the foundation of our nation.
I guess bargain shopping is more important to some people,though. The Clintons and the Bushes thank you for your patronage.
-
Don't be dishonest and twist my words. I said they have given up all pretense of respect for the Presidency - that is, for the office and what it represents in our Constitutional republic - because of their irrational hatred for a man.
@Jazzhead
I disagree. The left and their kissing cousins,the globalist capitalists, have NEVER had anything but contempt for our Constitutional Republic. The only thing that is new is that they aren't even trying to pretend they do anymore.
-
Actually if Cronkite hadn't lied about the Tet Offensive LBJ wouldn't have stepped down and would have run for another term.
@txradioguy
Do you think the Kennedy Klan paid him to do that,or that he did it out of love for them because they were long-time friends and even neighbors in the Hamptons?
Looking back,I think it is possible the northern elites in the Dim Party hated LBJ even more than the alleged Republican Party People of today hate Trump.
-
Cleaning out the dead weight.
-
Yeah... Just keep voting for no balanced budget and astronomical spending of borrowed money... That'll fix it. Those rascally Republicans will sure get your message.
Do you think by not voting GOP and allowing the radical left to take over is going to resolve the issue of a balanced budget? The GOP didn't get the message when Bammy won over both McCain and Romney. I really think we're beyond sending any message.
We may be able to re-elect Trump in 2020. Unless the radical left is stopped and the invasion at the border is curtailed, the GOP will be unable to defeat the DEMS in 2024. The only person that has any chance whatsoever of doing that right now is DJT. No one else is stepping up to the plate. Do I completely trust that he won't change after election? Absolutely not.
-
Don't be dishonest and twist my words. I said they have given up all pretense of respect for the Presidency - that is, for the office and what it represents in our Constitutional republic - because of their irrational hatred for a man.
Thats quite a logical contortion. I'll stick with my characterization.
-
@txradioguy
Do you think the Kennedy Klan paid him to do that,or that he did it out of love for them because they were long-time friends and even neighbors in the Hamptons?
Looking back,I think it is possible the northern elites in the Dim Party hated LBJ even more than the alleged Republican Party People of today hate Trump.
I don't know honestly. Johnson was an old school wheeler and dealer from back when he was in the House and from his time as Senate Majority leader. He knew how to twist arms and where the bodies were buried to the point he could have blunted any Northern Elites in the party from stopping is reelection.
He probably believed at the time that Cronkite was telling the truth. After his reports from Vietnam is when public support for the war truly began to go south and the whole counterculture revolution started to take off.
-
So what? Tump didn't leave it untouched either. Remember the bump-stock thing that will prove to further erode semi-automatic weapons ownership?
Yes indeed. No, I haven't forgotten. Do I trust him if re-elected not to dismantle the 2A any further? Not completely. Do I trust that the DEMS will dismantle the 2A? Absolutely. I have no doubt.
Yes, to me, this election is a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you don't election once again. I voted IND during the McCain/Bammy election as I thought both would destroy this country and only difference between the two was that Bammy would destroy it quicker than McCain. I didn't see much difference between the two as McCain ordinarily voted along side the DEMS anyways.
I do see difference between Trump and the DEMS and yes he's caved to them; however, he's also stood against them.
We can ping pong this back and forth, but by all means, absolutely, do what your conscience tells you to do.
-
Do you think by not voting GOP and allowing the radical left to take over is going to resolve the issue of a balanced budget? The GOP didn't get the message when Bammy won over both McCain and Romney. I really think we're beyond sending any message.
That is why I don't vote for them anymore. That is why voting for the lesser evil is drawing us further and further into the hole...
I DO know this: Nothing else matters if we don't stop hemorrhaging money.
We may be able to re-elect Trump in 2020.
I really don't care. He doesn't stand upon a single Conservative principle. He's a big-spending NYC liberal, and I really, REALLY can't see what you're buying.
Unless the radical left is stopped and the invasion at the border is curtailed, the GOP will be unable to defeat the DEMS in 2024. The only person that has any chance whatsoever of doing that right now is DJT. No one else is stepping up to the plate. Do I completely trust that he won't change after election? Absolutely not.
Voting against the Dems (which is what so many say they are doing) is really only and ever APPROVING the direction of the Republicans. I absolutely do NOT approve.
You can only vote *FOR*... Against means nothing, because the winner will think it is a mandate for them... not a vote against their opponent. Look at the last election... Ol Tumpy went roaring in like he just won the biggest win ever, when really, he barely eked out a win at all - And that against the most uninspiring Dem candidate in a century, who pissed off half her base by stepping on Bernie...
But Tump, he thinks he's got a mandate... And so do a lot of folks here.
-
Yes indeed. No, I haven't forgotten. Do I trust him if re-elected not to dismantle the 2A any further? Not completely. Do I trust that the DEMS will dismantle the 2A? Absolutely. I have no doubt.
FUD. The Conservative states would not stand for it.
And don't forget, Ol Tump won't be bound if you put him in there this time. He won't have to stand another election, so he will do whatever he wants... and you may well rue the day.
We can ping pong this back and forth, but by all means, absolutely, do what your conscience tells you to do.
Oh, you can bet money on that one. And I know you will too. :beer:
-
Don't be dishonest and twist my words. I said they have given up all pretense of respect for the Presidency - that is, for the office and what it represents in our Constitutional republic - because of their irrational hatred for a man.
I think if you asked them, they'd say they still have immense respect for the office -- just not for the current occupant whom they consider unworthy.
-
I can't think of any DEM running that doesn't go against the very principles that I stand for...so again...I will vote AGAINST the radical left and vote Trump in order to stop them.
Ditto.
-
Well, I din't know about @roamer_1 but I am not going to take responsibility for a Dem takeover of the presidency, house and possibly the senate. I will blame Republicans, including Trump, for lying to us voters and making promises they had no intention of keeping. They sat on their fat rears and did nothing for years -- even before Trump came along -- and now they want us to vote for them again? Sorry. I won't be fooled again.
If Republicans would get their act together, agree on a uniform platform that they all agree on that reflects what voters want, and put forth candidates voters would elect -- yes, I would vote Republican again. But I don't see any of that happening anytime soon.
And voting for Republicans does not "save us" from the Democrats. Republicans won't admit it, but they want many of the same things the Democrats want. They just want to get those things at a slower pace.
So.... in essence, you'll be voting (or not voting) for our national demise and destruction at turbo-speed via the radical leftist Democrats' control.... vs. our demise at a slower pace. Got it.
-
I'm trying to remember when there was a balanced budget ... so again ... we're truly left with not voting, voting DEM, or voting GOP. Everyone needs to decide what is best for them.
@libertybele
Kasich gave us two balanced budgets. He left and no balanced budget since he left.
-
@roamer_1
I think those retiring are doing it to get away from Trump. No one knows what he is going to say the next day and screw up something else.
-
@libertybele
Kasich gave us two balanced budgets. He left and no balanced budget since he left.
Hey church pew mate. Tell me again when Kasich was President? :smokin:
-
So.... in essence, you'll be voting (or not voting) for our national demise and destruction at turbo-speed via the radical leftist Democrats' control.... vs. our demise at a slower pace. Got it.
So you're ok for the outcome to be the same no matter who's in the WH as log as it's your guy overseeing the demise. Got it.
-
What, no Trump re-election wave?
Let's face reality, folks - Trump as the nominee drags down the GOP ticket. This has always been my greatest fear - not so much that a Democrat wins the Presidency, but that the GOP loses its Senate majority and the Dems can pillage at will.
------------------------------
Indeed, Trump is much more than a drag, he's a severe impediment;
as his behavior signals increasing mental chaos every day.
The R's would be smart not to re-nominate him by kicking him out!!!
-
Hey church pew mate. Tell me again when Kasich was President? :smokin:
He was chairman of the House Budget Committee for 6 years (1995-2001). This was back in the day when the budget and spending bills were still emanating from the proper places...long before the Dems turned the budget into a slush fund.
-
So you're ok for the outcome to be the same no matter who's in the WH as log as it's your guy overseeing the demise. Got it.
Hell no I'm not ok with our demise. But if given the chance to vote for our demise next year.... vs. four years from now, I'll take the delay and hope/pray for a miracle. I'm just funny that way.
-
Many good points brought up in this Thread, thus far, (Thank You Briefers).
It's very likely I will hold my nose and vote for Trump in 2020, something I haven't done since 2008/McCain (hell, I didn't even vote for Cruz in 2018).
It's as others up thread have so eloquently pointed out, Texas 38 EV's are important in the whole scheme of things.
Demographics are changing in Texas (Exhibit A: Cruz winning by only 2.4% here (unless it was, as I also believe, a bunch of Trumper butthurt)).
It appears at this stage, I no longer have the luxury of a 3rd party protest vote against the unibrow party (dem/rep), another thing I can Thank Trump for. (that last sentence was sarcasm)
-
He was chairman of the House Budget Committee for 6 years (1995-2001). This was back in the day when the budget and spending bills were still emanating from the proper places...long before the Dems turned the budget into a slush fund.
Ah. How soon we forget. THX!
-
Hell no I'm not ok with our demise. But if given the chance to vote for our demise next year.... vs. four years from now, I'll take the delay and hope/pray for a miracle. I'm just funny that way.
Kicking the can down the road two years...four years however long and hoping for a "miracle" is why we're in the situation we're in now.
-
Kicking the can down the road two years...four years however long and hoping for a "miracle" is why we're in the situation we're in now.
The way I see it is.... we have no other choice. Literally.
-
The way I see it is.... we have no other choice. Literally.
Yeah and THAT got us in this situation too.
-
Yeah and THAT got us in this situation too.
So tell me. What's your solution? What, at this point, will for shock-sure get us "out" of """this situation"""? And please...
be realistic.
-
So tell me. What's your solution? What, at this point, will for shock-sure get us "out" of """this situation"""? And please...
be realistic.
Nothing will be "realistic" to you at this point unless it's 110% unwavering support for Trump...which in reality is quite unrealistic.
But anyway...
People like McConnell...Cornyn and that tight little group of "moderates" that Mitch surrounds himself with...need to be sent home and replaced with Republicans that believe in Conservatism. The RINO's in the House that supported the budgets that Trump said he'd never sign again but did... same for them. We have the power to send a message...to put different people in office that look out for us...it's not like it hasn't been done before.
But it requires more than hope...and/or a miracle or just throwing up our hands and saying "there's nothing I can do". It requires people actually getting off their ass and doing what it takes to wrest (via elections) power back from the left that even when they're not in power...still think they run the show.
1994 comes to mind. That election blunted Clinton's attempts to drag us left. Forced a lot of reforms and as @Victoria33 pointed out...gave us the last balanced budgets we've seen in our lifetime.
Sadly the same kind of infusion of new blood into the House and Senate on the GOP side may be what's needed to force Trump to stop lurching left especially in a second term. We already know he can't or won't do it on his own.
-
So tell me. What's your solution? What, at this point, will for shock-sure get us "out" of """this situation"""? And please...
be realistic.
Of all the people lecturing to be realistic, you're the last one who should be one of them after you lectured so many of us in opposition to any Obamacare rollback because it wasn't total repeal all at once and you would rather have Obamacare still in place than any progress toward that goal.
-
He was chairman of the House Budget Committee for 6 years (1995-2001). This was back in the day when the budget and spending bills were still emanating from the proper places...long before the Dems turned the budget into a slush fund.
@txradioguy
It's been nothing but a slush fund since King Franklin and his commie cousin/wife were in the WH.
-
Of all the people lecturing to be realistic, you're the last one who should be one of them after you lectured so many of us in opposition to any Obamacare rollback because it wasn't total repeal all at once and you would rather have Obamacare still in place than any progress toward that goal.
Umm.... you're obviously confused. I have never wanted Obamacare 'still in place'. And I don't recall lecturing anyone on the issue of an Obamacare "rollback"... whatever the hell that means. Could you kindly link me to that post?
-
Kicking the can down the road two years...four years however long and hoping for a "miracle" is why we're in the situation we're in now.
@txradioguy
No,being Party Pod People who would vote for an orangutan if someone put a t-shirt with a Big Red R" on him is what got us where we are today. The Dim Party is hopeless,and the ONLY way we can hope to "fix" the alleged Republican Party is by scaring them. The Usual Suspects running for the office of president ARE them. They hate Trump because he ISN'T one of them,and he is rocking their apple cart.
Trump,on the other hand is in this for the ego boost,and no amount of money or anything else is as important to him as this is. He also knows he can ONLY serve one more 4 year term and is then out of office forever and will never have another opportunity like this to polish his image in the history books.
His whole ego right now is based on turning things around and making real changes that will save America PRECISELY because they will also save the image he has of himself,and other people will also share that image.
-
Kicking the can down the road two years...four years however long and hoping for a "miracle" is why we're in the situation we're in now.
Very true, but if you see another option, please let me know. I don't expect our Republic to remain in tact for very much longer.
-
Nothing will be "realistic" to you at this point unless it's 110% unwavering support for Trump...which in reality is quite unrealistic.
That's a pretty unfair crack coming from you.... since I'm not exactly a bona-fide, card-carrying Trump supporter. More like a reluctant co-opted supporter. So...color me surprised @you.
But anyway...
People like McConnell...Cornyn and that tight little group of "moderates" that Mitch surrounds himself with...need to be sent home and replaced with Republicans that believe in Conservatism. The RINO's in the House that supported the budgets that Trump said he'd never sign again but did... same for them. We have the power to send a message...to put different people in office that look out for us...it's not like it hasn't been done before.
Just as I suspected. More pie in the sky (bullshit) rhetoric about what is most likely NOT going to happen next year. Yes, of course, the establishment RINOs are a major obstacle. But the RL is an even bigger one in my logic book.
So...what "different people" would you put in office next year, specifically? Got any names of who to vote for to replace the RINOs? And no, we haven't exactly had a flaming success in that endeavor, thus far. Bottom line is.... we have the choice to either support the GOP against the radical left next year... or say the hell with it, who cares, it's a lost cause, or "we tried to vote out the RINOs again, but failed". Sorry, but I'm just not feeling it.
But it requires more than hope...and/or a miracle or just throwing up our hands and saying "there's nothing I can do". It requires people actually getting off their ass and doing what it takes to wrest (via elections) power back from the left that even when they're not in power...still think they run the show.
1994 comes to mind. That election blunted Clinton's attempts to drag us left. Forced a lot of reforms and as @Victoria33 pointed out...gave us the last balanced budgets we've seen in our lifetime.
Sadly the same kind of infusion of new blood into the House and Senate on the GOP side may be what's needed to force Trump to stop lurching left especially in a second term. We already know he can't or won't do it on his own.
It's a little late for that infusion at this point, don't you think? We're now up against the communists, out of the closet and loud and proud. And they are going for our collective jugulars.
If Trump turns out to go squishy (or Bushy) in his second term... and lets us down... at least our descent will have been slowed compared to how fast the commiecrats would have driven us down. Reality sucks AND bites.
-
The negativity toward President Trump here is astounding to me. Yes, he is caustic and abrasive, and I love him for it. He is getting things done for the benefit of US citizens. The Dem party has proven they only care about illegal invading aliens.
All you weak kneed folks worried about the Senate being lost, on what basis? There is nothing to suggest such a scenario is in the making. Fact is the GOP does NOT have a voting majority, and most likely will not after the election in 2020. However, if they can gain a voting majority and win the House, and I believe both are possible, more so than the GOP losing the Senate, then Trump will have the best 2nd term of any president in history.
I thank God every day Trump is president. If corrupt HR Clinton had become president, she would have continued on the God forsaken track of Obama, the worst president in history.
-
@txradioguy
It's been nothing but a slush fund since King Franklin and his commie cousin/wife were in the WH.
There was still a bit of an ordered approach to where and how spending bills were generated and sent up for approval even under King Franklin I.
They didn't really start becoming the norm IIRC until Tipsy O'Neill was Speaker and it was used as a weapon of sorts to try and blunt the reforms Reagan was trying to enact.
-
The negativity toward President Trump here is astounding to me. Yes, he is caustic and abrasive, and I love him for it. He is getting things done for the benefit of US citizens. The Dem party has proven they only care about illegal invading aliens.
Still don't see the wall. Hillary still isn't locked up. Obamacare still in place. China still not brought to heel. Norks still making nukes and testing rockets. Oh and the deficits and deficit spending is busting out bigger than before thanks to the "deal" the Republicans and the Democrats worked out (with NO money for the wall). Trump is gonna sign it despite the fact that he said he'd never sign a budget like the last one he signed every again. Then there's that promise to eliminate the deficit in 8 years.
All you weak kneed folks worried about the Senate being lost, on what basis? There is nothing to suggest such a scenario is in the making. Fact is the GOP does NOT have a voting majority, and most likely will not after the election in 2020. However, if they can gain a voting majority and win the House, and I believe both are possible, more so than the GOP losing the Senate, then Trump will have the best 2nd term of any president in history.
Lots of hopes and wishes in there that historically don't hold up for a second term presidency. Especially one that's been trashed the way Trump's has by the media and the left.
I thank God every day Trump is president. If corrupt HR Clinton had become president, she would have continued on the God forsaken track of Obama, the worst president in history.
But imagine how much better off if so many people hadn't bought into the notion...fictitious as it was...that Trump was our only hope of beating Hillary.
-
That's a pretty unfair crack coming from you.... since I'm not exactly a bona-fide, card-carrying Trump supporter. More like a reluctant co-opted supporter. So...color me surprised @you.
Just as I suspected. More pie in the sky (bullshit) rhetoric about what is most likely NOT going to happen next year. Yes, of course, the establishment RINOs are a major obstacle. But the RL is an even bigger one in my logic book.
So...what "different people" would you put in office next year, specifically? Got any names of who to vote for to replace the RINOs? And no, we haven't exactly had a flaming success in that endeavor, thus far. Bottom line is.... we have the choice to either support the GOP against the radical left next year... or say the hell with it, who cares, it's a lost cause, or "we tried to vote out the RINOs again, but failed". Sorry, but I'm just not feeling it.
It's a little late for that infusion at this point, don't you think? We're now up against the communists, out of the closet and loud and proud. And they are going for our collective jugulars.
If Trump turns out to go squishy (or Bushy) in his second term... and lets us down... at least our descent will have been slowed compared to how fast the commiecrats would have driven us down. Reality sucks AND bites.
There's no helping your particular case of TDS. It's actually a strain that's worse than the Democrats strain of the same disease.
Like I said at the outset and your knee jerk response to what I laid out has proven...you're not really concerned about the demise...you're only worry/hope/etc is that it's "your guy" in charge of it.
-
So tell me. What's your solution? What, at this point, will for shock-sure get us "out" of """this situation"""? And please...
be realistic.
He doesn't have a GD thing to offer except bitching and moaning. From a pedestal.
-
There's no helping your particular case of TDS. It's actually a strain that's worse than the Democrats strain of the same disease.
Like I said at the outset and your knee jerk response to what I laid out has proven...you're not really concerned about the demise...you're only worry/hope/etc is that it's "your guy" in charge of it.
And that is, quite frankly, bullshit.
-
Oh FFS … how long have the usuals here been waiting for *this* propaganda to be published? *****rollingeyes*****
-
He doesn't have a GD thing to offer except bitching and moaning. From a pedestal.
There's been a whole lot of alternative's offered. But you're too invested in the myth of Trump to take off your orange colored glasses and see the reality of the situation. You think he's a Saint sent from heaven. You've said as much. And in the past you've wished violence and retribution agaisnt people who didn't support Trump.
There's no dealing with or rationalizing with your kind of blind fealty.
-
And that is, quite frankly, bullshit.
I feel sorry for folks like you that worship Trump like you do. No room for criticism or rational discussion about the way forward.
The only answer you accept for any question dealing with this country and it's problems is Trump. Nothing else will be even considered.
-
And that is, quite frankly, bullshit.
And I continue to be amazed at the bile directed by some at anyone who doesn't have a hate-on for Trump.
Posters with whom we'd otherwise be in total accord. Hells bells can't we give it a friggen rest?
-
I feel sorry for folks like you that worship Trump like you do. No room for criticism or rational discussion about the way forward.
The only answer you accept for any question dealing with this country and it's problems is Trump. Nothing else will be even considered.
What in the "f" are you even talking about??? What are you on?
Unfreakin real.
-
And I continue to be amazed at the bile directed by some at anyone who doesn't have a hate-on for Trump.
Posters with whom we'd otherwise be in total accord. Hells bells can't we give it a friggen rest?
@skeeter
Speaking for myself...and I know the usual irrational types will chime in to the negative...but I don't have a hate-on for Trump. I've done exactly what I said I'd do...back him and defend him when he's right and criticize him when he's wrong.
IF that's considered "bile" then I don't know what to say. :shrug:
-
Trump must, like LBJ in 1968, step down as the nominee to save both to save his own legacy and to ensure a future for his priorities.
You need to explain that one, since LBJ was in a different party than is Trump and definitely did not save both his legacy and ensured a future for his priorities as Nixon was elected.
Perhaps you are believing Nixon was saving LBJ's legacy?
-
And I continue to be amazed at the bile directed by some at anyone who doesn't have a hate-on for Trump.
Posters with whom we'd otherwise be in total accord. Hells bells can't we give it a friggen rest?
He just accused ME of "Trump worship", FFS. How absurd. I mean....normally I'd say I want some of what he's smoking, but at this point, I think I really don't.
-
He just accused ME of "Trump worship", FFS. How absurd. I mean....normally I'd say I want some of what he's smoking, but at this point, I think I really don't.
Not smoking anything. Just calling it how I see it. You din't think anyone BUT Trump can do anything about what ails this country. You rejected perfectly logical replies to what you were saying.
You don't think a change in leadership will help. You're only "hope" is that the decline can be slowed with the people we have in place instead of trying to find a way to reverse it.
What else is anyone to deduce from that?
-
To solidify the GOP, we definitely do NOT need to continue electing the same people until they are octogenarians. Much better to produce new younger talent on a continuous basis.
Step down when that replacement is found.
That is the problem occurring right now with the Dems. The new younger breed vs the old timers who feel they deserve to be where they are forever.
-
To solidify the GOP, we definitely do NOT need to continue electing the same people until they are octogenarians. Much better to produce new younger talent on a continuous basis.
Step down when that replacement is found.
That is the problem occurring right now with the Dems. The new younger breed vs the old timers who feel they deserve to be where they are forever.
Exactly!
-
@skeeter
Speaking for myself...and I know the usual irrational types will chime in to the negative...but I don't have a hate-on for Trump. I've done exactly what I said I'd do...back him and defend him when he's right and criticize him when he's wrong.
IF that's considered "bile" then I don't know what to say. :shrug:
I'm referring to the apparent hostility directed at those who aren't as critical of him as you are.
-
Hi everybody! Whazzup today? There seems to be a fistfight going on....
Does anybody have any pie?
-
Not smoking anything. Just calling it how I see it. You din't think anyone BUT Trump can do anything about what ails this country. You rejected perfectly logical replies to what you were saying.
You don't think a change in leadership will help. You're only "hope" is that the decline can be slowed with the people we have in place instead of trying to find a way to reverse it.
What else is anyone to deduce from that?
Your off the charts hyperbole aside.... you're seeing things all wrong.
Realistically, there is no other GOP candidate that will have a chance of beating the rats next year. I don't know of ANY GOP candidate that could win. Realistically, the only "change in leadership" that can occur next year is the rats defeating the GOP. And realistically, with enough folks like you thinking like you do...
that probability is increasing drastically.
But seriously dude... calling me a Trump worshiper has destroyed any credibility you might have had with me. We're done.
-
I'm referring to the apparent hostility directed at those who aren't as critical of him as you are.
Gotcha.
-
There's been a whole lot of alternative's offered. But you're too invested in the myth of Trump to take off your orange colored glasses and see the reality of the situation. You think he's a Saint sent from heaven. You've said as much. And in the past you've wished violence and retribution agaisnt people who didn't support Trump.
There's no dealing with or rationalizing with your kind of blind fealty.
Stick to your day job, because your political acumen sucks. Big time!
-
Stick to your day job, because your political acumen sucks. Big time!
From a one note one trick pony like yourself...that's a compliment.
-
Hi everybody! Whazzup today? There seems to be a fistfight going on....
Does anybody have any pie?
Nah no fistfight. Just some people not accepting a little dose of reality.
No pie for you today...it's not on your diet. :tongue2:
-
From a one note one trick pony like yourself...that's a compliment.
Is that a personal insult?
....asking for a FRiend. *****rollingeyes*****
-
All you weak kneed folks worried about the Senate being lost, on what basis? There is nothing to suggest such a scenario is in the making.
Sorry to bust your bubble but when the GOP has 22 up for grabs vs only 12 for the Dems, the GOP is indeed more susceptible.
Only when these seats are up can they be lost.
-
You are better than that. People standing upon principle are not pouting.
What is it you expect to gain from such language?
Because I assure you - Your words do not benefit your cause.
Amen!
Those who accuse people with consistent values and principles of "doing nothing," or "pouting, " or whatever, are losing their own argument.
-
Oh FFS … how long have the usuals here been waiting for *this* propaganda to be published? *****rollingeyes*****
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/21nuyB60iRNqYiq7gg74uw--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0yMDA7dz0zNDM-/https://media.giphy.com/media/L0hfWN4j1N2GA/200.gif.cf.gif)
Perhaps it is time for fresh baked pie, because this reeks of irony and hypocrisy.
-
Nah no fistfight. Just some people not accepting a little dose of reality.
No pie for you today...it's not on your diet. :tongue2:
Well, @XenaLee is no Trump-worshiper. It was all I could do to convince her he's not half-bad.
And you're right about the pie. :bullie smokin:
-
Sorry to bust your bubble but when the GOP has 22 up for grabs vs only 12 for the Dems, the GOP is indeed more susceptible.
Only when these seats are up can they be lost.
Quite right. I looked that up, and we have 22 seats up. It should be a matter of concern, no matter what happens with the Presidential Election in 2020.
-
Well, @XenaLee is no Trump-worshiper. It was all I could do to convince her he's not half-bad.
And you're right about the pie. :bullie smokin:
Hell no, I'm not. Anybody here with half a remaining working brain cell knows that (ooops). lol
-
Your off the charts hyperbole aside.... you're seeing things all wrong.
Realistically, there is no other GOP candidate that will have a chance of beating the rats next year. I don't know of ANY GOP candidate that could win. Realistically, the only "change in leadership" that can occur next year is the rats defeating the GOP. And realistically, with enough folks like you thinking like you do...
that probability is increasing drastically.
But seriously dude... calling me a Trump worshiper has destroyed any credibility you might have had with me. We're done.
The only reason that no one in the GOP has a chance against Trump is because of the group of people in the GOP who see him as the Messiah, who cannot be replaced.
If the GOP were wise enough to give us a strong conservative candidate with even a modicum of self-control and decency, we could beat any socialist the left gives us.
As it stands, reasonable people and consistent conservatives have no choice again in 2020.
-
To solidify the GOP, we definitely do NOT need to continue electing the same people until they are octogenarians. Much better to produce new younger talent on a continuous basis.
Step down when that replacement is found.
That is the problem occurring right now with the Dems. The new younger breed vs the old timers who feel they deserve to be where they are forever.
Yes, we need to STOP electing the same people. I couldn't agree more. Problem is, that very often, there isn't a conservative who challenges the incumbents. Therefore, choices are limited; abstain from voting for the undesirable incumbent, vote 3rd party or vote DEM.
At this point in time, in the case of President Trump, for myself, I just don't see abstaining or voting DEM as an alternative. I wish the Constitution Party would actually succeed to where they're on the ballot in all 50 states -- that's never happened -- even as a write in.
So here we sit. As stated before, I voted 3rd party during the Bammy/McCain election -- and -- didn't make a darn bit of difference, nor did losing that election wake up the GOP.
So again, and I'm just not addressing you in particular -- what is our alternative in 2020?? No one is challenging Trump.
-
The only reason that no one in the GOP has a chance against Trump is because of the group of people in the GOP who see him as the Messiah, who cannot be replaced.
If the GOP were wise enough to give us a strong conservative candidate with even a modicum of self-control and decency, we could beat any socialist the left gives us.
As it stands, reasonable people and consistent conservatives have no choice again in 2020.
Exactly. We must face that reality... which is.... we are stuck with Trump in 2020. He is the only one that has any chance of winning against the rats. It's a sucky thing to face, but better to face it than to do what some folks are doing... ie sticking their heads in the sand (or some other dark, dank place...lol)... and pretending things are not what they are.
-
Here's what I know.
1. Nearly three years of this shit has become EXCEEDINGLY tiresome!
2. Almost no one here ever offers any SOLUTIONS to anything.
3. When on that rare occasion, someone DOES do that it gets near zero attention.
:seeya:
-
Here's what I know.
1. Nearly three years of this shit has become EXCEEDINGLY tiresome!
2. Almost no one here ever offers any SOLUTIONS to anything.
3. When on that rare occasion, someone DOES do that it gets near zero attention.
1. That’s the nature of political discourse.
2. Maybe we should vote for joke candidates from the Constitution Party?
3. See #2.
-
The only reason that no one in the GOP has a chance against Trump is because of the group of people in the GOP who see him as the Messiah, who cannot be replaced.
If the GOP were wise enough to give us a strong conservative candidate with even a modicum of self-control and decency, we could beat any socialist the left gives us.
As it stands, reasonable people and consistent conservatives have no choice again in 2020.
IF the GOP were to give us a strong candidate??? I can think of several strong candidates, but I don't see any of them running even if asked that would be willing to challenge Trump, or stand up against all the mayhem that the left will undoubtedly throw on them. Also factor in, it takes millions to run a campaign; which takes getting prominent people with deep pockets who want a conservative to back them. Who's going to go up against Trump's money and all his connections?? Cruz was the only one who came even close in '16 and obviously we know how that turned out.
The RNC refused to back the most conservative candidate last election, I don't see them changing their tune. I believe Trump had Priebus in his pocket and a few others; McConnell, Sessions and possibly Hannity.
-
txradioguy
I feel sorry for folks like you that worship Trump like you do. No room for criticism or rational discussion about the way forward.
The only answer you accept for any question dealing with this country and it's problems is Trump. Nothing else will be even considered.
I grew up in a union and strong Dem household that worshiped JFK. JFK was a man whore who accomplished very little while president. I believe less legislation was passed than any other president during his presidency up to his being president. Trump on the other hand, has accomplished many things, without a cooperative Congress. While he has similar behaviors to JFK, he is a business man that knows how to produce results.
The Democrat clown car offers what exactly if not proceeded by the word free? A big fat nothing.
So, txradioguy, please tell me WHO you would suggest in place of Trump? Lying Ted? Please. He would have been thoroughly defeated by HRC. And Jeb? America has had enough Bushes to last a 1000 years. Little Marko, wet behind the ears Marko, no way. And last but not least, the postman's boy John Kasich? He is not the same man he was while in Congress 20+ years ago. He is a total flake now. He should switch his party registration, for he sounds like a liberal flake.
Back to the thread subject, retirement from Congress. You do know they need only five years of service in their position to collect their FULL PAY the rest of their life, with all the increases Congress votes for itself every few years. So, why stay after five years?
Not having TERM LIMITS in my humble opinion keeps mediocre life politicians who are more dedicated to preserving their position in life versus actually representing the people that sent them to Washington in the first place. Every last politician that wants to leave...GOOD RIDDANCE!!! There is no one in Congress that makes a positive difference for the American people. They are all expendable! I would rather risk losing the seat but have the opportunity to get fresh conservative blood willing to make a difference than keep the same self serving POS that has held the position for 20 years.
-
Sorry to bust your bubble but when the GOP has 22 up for grabs vs only 12 for the Dems, the GOP is indeed more susceptible.
Only when these seats are up can they be lost.
Every congressional house seat is up every two years. A retirement from a house seat presents an open seat.
(Just trying to set the nomenclature for rounds three and four of this great debate.)
-
I grew up in a union and strong Dem household that worshiped JFK. JFK was a man whore who accomplished very little while president. I believe less legislation was passed than any other president during his presidency up to his being president. Trump on the other hand, has accomplished many things, without a cooperative Congress. While he has similar behaviors to JFK, he is a business man tha knows how to produce results.
The Democrat clown car offers what exactly if not proceeded by the word free? A big fat nothing.
So, txradioguy, please tell me WHO you would suggest in place of Trump? Lying Ted? Please. He would have been thoroughly defeated by HRC. And Jeb? America has had enough Bushes to last a 1000 years. Little Marko, wet behind the ears Marko, no way. And last but not least, the postman's boy John Kasich? He is not the same man he was while in Congress 20+ years ago. He is a total flake now. He should switch his party registration, for he sounds like a liberal flake.
Back to the thread subject, retirement from Congress. You do know they need only five years of service in their position to collect their FULL PAY the rest of their life, with all the increases Congress votes for itself every few years. So, why stay after five years?
Not having TERM LIMITS in my humble opinion keeps mediocre life politicians who are more dedicated to preserving their position in life versus actually representing the people that sent them to Washington in the first place. Every last politician that wants to leave...GOOD RIDDANCE!!! There is no one in Congress that makes a positive difference for the American people. They are all expendable! I would rather risk losing the seat but have the opportunity to get fresh conservative blood willing to make a difference than keep the same self serving POS that has held the position for 20 years.
This isn't about who in the past election could have beat Trump or won over Hillary. That's in the past.
Again, the reality of the matter is that there is no one challenging Trump. IF a candidate does challenge him, then I would happily consider that alternative.
IMHO IF we don't win in 2020, there won't be another GOP seated.
-
Here's what I know.
1. Nearly three years of this shit has become EXCEEDINGLY tiresome!
2. Almost no one here ever offers any SOLUTIONS to anything.
3. When on that rare occasion, someone DOES do that it gets near zero attention.
:seeya:
Let me break it down for you, @Bigun
We have the usual suspects here bitching and moaning for FOUR years....not three years that Trump is a loser and a horrible man and candidate.
We have the same usual suspects here complaining that Reps and Senators never give up their seats and leave and on this very thread bemoan the possibility that the GOP will have almost 2 dozen 'retiring'.
We have the same usual suspects claiming that they're not against the POTUS and that they "...will praise him when he does good and criticize him when he screws up"...yet nobody recalls these individuals coming to the defense of the man.
ERGO: to hell with them. And the jackasses they rode in on.
-
Let me break it down for you, @Bigun
We have the usual suspects here bitching and moaning for FOUR years....not three years that Trump is a loser and a horrible man and candidate.
We have the same usual suspects here complaining that Reps and Senators never give up their seats and leave and on this very thread bemoan the possibility that the GOP will have almost 2 dozen 'retiring'.
We have the same usual suspects claiming that they're not against the POTUS and that they "...will praise him when he does good and criticize him when he screws up"...yet nobody recalls these individuals coming to the defense of the man.
ERGO: to hell with them. And the jackasses they rode in on.
I think that if they act like an Ass they should not be surprised if they are ridden like an ass.
But no matter.....management says jackasses enrich the TBR experience and diversity of opinion is welcomed.
-
Again....libertybele...the defeatism...!
In 2016, Trump was NOT expected to win. He did. And to assume that we will never see another GOP candidate as president is defeatist, and just wrong. The Dems offer nothing and there is no hope for GOP candidates?
Demographics may be changing, but studies also show that 2nd generation hispanics are overwhelmingly conservative with their vote. So, you should not despair.
As I indicated, I was raised in a staunch Democrat household. My mother was a radical unionist, and it was my father in the union. Until 2008, I was a registered Dem, yet I voted Republican in national elections. People do get more conservative as they get older. I used to vote for what I thought was the best candidate. No longer.
I will never vote for another Dem. Never. A large part of the Dems has gone communist and I believe we need to acknowledge that fact and no longer support this lost party. For me, the notion that the Dems allow Sanders to run as a Dem, when in fact he is a communist, completely destroys the branding of their party. Fact is they are lost and will remain so for the foreseeable future, and with this, the GOP has every opportunity to win every four years. They cannot run losers like McCain and Romney and expect to win however. They have to be smarter than that. Dole was another candidate destined to lose from Day One.
-
I think that if they act like an Ass they should not be surprised if they are ridden like an ass.
But no matter.....management says jackasses enrich the TBR experience and diversity of opinion is welcomed.
I have no problem at all with a diversity of opinions. My problem is with going round and round the same damned bush to infinity.
-
I think that if they act like an Ass they should not be surprised if they are ridden like an ass.
But no matter.....management says jackasses enrich the TBR experience and diversity of opinion is welcomed.
That's correct! 0005
-
That's correct! 0005
I think that if they act like an Ass they should not be surprised if they are ridden like an ass.
Thank you so much for giving us the go-ahead, @Cyber Liberty Please remember that in the future. :laugh:
-
I have no problem at all with a diversity of opinions. My problem is with going round and round the same damned bush to infinity.
As soon as these cretins begin to show support for the man fighting against odds his entire life...for the GOOD of the nation, we'll move on.
Until then...round and round we go.
-
I think that if they act like an Ass they should not be surprised if they are ridden like an ass.
But no matter.....management says jackasses enrich the TBR experience and diversity of opinion is welcomed.
I completely agree, @The Ghost , so long as MY "principles" are viewed thru the same prism, and are as sacred as @roamer_1 's and his kind.
-
Exactly. We must face that reality... which is.... we are stuck with Trump in 2020. He is the only one that has any chance of winning against the rats. It's a sucky thing to face, but better to face it than to do what some folks are doing... ie sticking their heads in the sand (or some other dark, dank place...lol)... and pretending things are not what they are.
It is August of 2019. There is plenty of time to persuade the President not to run for re-election. That possibility, that conversation must start soon. (For the record, LBJ did not announce he would not run for re-election in 1968 until March 31 of 1968.)
This is not about replacing Trump with a foe. It is about persuading him, like LBJ, to not run in favor of an ally who can take up the banner and win the war that Trump cannot. Given number of seats we must defend, the loss of the Senate is almost certain if Trump drags down the ticket with independent and suburban voters.
-
It is August of 2019. There is plenty of time to persuade the President not to run for re-election. That possibility, that conversation must start soon. (For the record, LBJ did not announce he would not run for re-election in 1968 until March 31 of 1968.)
It won’t happen, for at least two reasons. First, he would never give up the adulation he receives from campaigning. Also, there is an SDNY indictment awaiting Individual-1.
-
I completely agree, @The Ghost , so long as MY "principles" are viewed thru the same prism, and are as sacred as @roamer_1 's and his kind.
I hear you @DCPatriot. Since I started my Lithobid treatments I tend to not be bothered by the lunatic fringe. :cool:
-
As soon as these cretins begin to show support for the man fighting against odds his entire life...for the GOOD of the nation, we'll move on.
Until then...round and round we go.
Not me! Had enough!
-
Jazzhead...you keep suggesting that Trump follow in LBJ's footsteps and step down. That is not going to happen.
Clearly, you were not around or paying attention when LBJ was president. When he decided to 'not run', I think it was in large part realizing that his decisions regarding Vietnam were completely erroneous, and that he believed he would not win.
That is not Trump's concern. You think Trump is concerned about the Dem clown car? Are you delusional? He has no worries regarding the present field of Dems. NONE! And if you think he is concerned about the media polls indicating Sleepy Joe and a few other Dems would defeat him, again, you understand very little about this man.
BTW, LBJ was a long time politician, who built power in Congress to coerce many to do what he wants. Trump has none of that, and has proceeded without Congress on almost everything he has done. He does not see failure. He just won in court with the ability to use Defense funds to build the wall. He is no where even close to being where LBJ was in 1968.
It will be TRUMP vs CLINTON in 2020. No one in the clown car has a chance against Trump. NO ONE! Just because Clinton hasn't announced does not mean she will not in the coming months. She will, and she will give him a real run for the money. She still loses. He takes 40 states.
-
"cretins" "his kind" "lunatic fringe"
Great way to see things from your point of view or at least discuss things with you in a rational way. :yowsa:
-
As soon as these cretins begin to show support for the man fighting against odds his entire life...for the GOOD of the nation, we'll move on.
Until then...round and round we go.
Odds? You mean the son of a multi-millionaire in NYC real estate had to struggle to build a business in NYC real estate? Don’t forget the terrible physical limitations from those debilitating bone spurs. I think this may be the first time I simultaneously laughed and vomited.
-
IF the GOP were to give us a strong candidate??? I can think of several strong candidates, but I don't see any of them running even if asked that would be willing to challenge Trump, or stand up against all the mayhem that the left will undoubtedly throw on them. Also factor in, it takes millions to run a campaign; which takes getting prominent people with deep pockets who want a conservative to back them. Who's going to go up against Trump's money and all his connections?? Cruz was the only one who came even close in '16 and obviously we know how that turned out.
The RNC refused to back the most conservative candidate last election, I don't see them changing their tune. I believe Trump had Priebus in his pocket and a few others; McConnell, Sessions and possibly Hannity.
Hannity and Rush, respectively, were already in his Front Pants Pocket, closer to the action.
-
Hannity and Rush, respectively, were already in his Front Pants Pocket, closer to the action.
Is one hand in his pocket
And the other one is flicking a cigarette
Or is the other one is giving a peace sign?
And what it all boils down to
Is that no one's really got it figured out just yet
Next up: Isn't Ironic @corbe?
-
Amen!
Those who accuse people with consistent values and principles of "doing nothing," or "pouting, " or whatever, are losing their own argument.
No sense talking to em @musiclady ... The bit is in their teeth. :shrug:
-
2. Almost no one here ever offers any SOLUTIONS to anything.
3. When on that rare occasion, someone DOES do that it gets near zero attention.
That's right. @txradioguy offered the only real solution: THROW THE BASTARDS OUT!!!
All of them.
Reboot.
And I am absolutely with him on that.
But predictably, no one else will be.
-
How soon they forget that we offered a 'VIABLE' alternative up until they turned our mics off at the GOP Convention.
-
I completely agree, @The Ghost , so long as MY "principles" are viewed thru the same prism, and are as sacred as @roamer_1 's and his kind.
What principles @DCPatriot ?
You're a pragmatist.
Always have been.
That is by definition, without principles. Whatever works, right?
-
I think this may be the first time I simultaneously laughed and vomited.
Be careful with that or you'll poop yourself.
Jussayin.
:seeya:
-
It is August of 2019. There is plenty of time to persuade the President not to run for re-election. That possibility, that conversation must start soon. (For the record, LBJ did not announce he would not run for re-election in 1968 until March 31 of 1968.)
This is not about replacing Trump with a foe. It is about persuading him, like LBJ, to not run in favor of an ally who can take up the banner and win the war that Trump cannot. Given number of seats we must defend, the loss of the Senate is almost certain if Trump drags down the ticket with independent and suburban voters.
Well, when or IF Trump is "persuaded" to step down, then that begins a whole other conversation. The GOP needs to defend 22 seats in the Senate and in order to gain the majority the DEMS need to defend 12 seats and gain 3. I'd agree that's a pretty bleak outlook considering the DEMS won a considerable majority in the House in '18.
-
How soon they forget that we offered a 'VIABLE' alternative up until they turned our mics off at the GOP Convention.
:amen: 888high58888 :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
-
"cretins" "his kind" "lunatic fringe"
Great way to see things from your point of view or at least discuss things with you in a rational way. :yowsa:
Buddy....it's been FOUR YEARS since that escalator ride with Melania.
For FOUR YEARS I've been trying to discuss things with your side, and all we get is "Not my circus...not my monkeys"..."My principles won't be compromised", etc., hoping that ya'll get the chance to come down on us that support this incredible, America-loving POTUS.
Hope you brought some Snickers bars while you wait for him to fail. :laugh:
-
Hope you brought some Snickers bars while you wait for him to fail. :laugh:
Wait?
He has been failing all along.
I honestly do not see what you're looking at. @DCPatriot
Y'all are in a different universe.
-
Buddy....it's been FOUR YEARS since that escalator ride with Melania.
For FOUR YEARS I've been trying to discuss things with your side, and all we get is "Not my circus...not my monkeys"..."My principles won't be compromised", etc., hoping that ya'll get the chance to come down on us that support this incredible, America-loving POTUS.
Hope you brought some Snickers bars while you wait for him to fail. :laugh:
Your side?? That's part of the problem. In order to win in 2020 we ALL need somehow to come together or we lose. Just my humble opinion of course.
-
What principles @DCPatriot ?
You're a pragmatist.
Always have been.
That is by definition, without principles. Whatever works, right?
@roamer_1
What good are held principles if you don't display a hint of pragmatism? If you don't assess the landscape in which you're fighting?
You are too afraid to leap without any guarantee of success.
BULLETIN! There aren't any guarantees.
Sitting on the sidelines refusing to partake because the man doesn't fit your world view of Conservatism is selfish and stupid.
....not necessarily in that order.
-
Your side?? That's part of the problem. In order to win in 2020 we ALL need somehow to come together or we lose. Just my humble opinion of course.
That literally cannot happen.
-
Your side?? That's part of the problem. In order to win in 2020 we ALL need somehow to come together or we lose. Just my humble opinion of course.
Again with the tennis racket and backyard squirrel...
After 4 years of trying to get them to reassess themselves? You're GD right there are two sides on this forum.
-
Wait?
He has been failing all along.
I honestly do not see what you're looking at. @DCPatriot
Y'all are in a different universe.
LOL! ...says the guy inside the zoo behind the glass.
-
What good are held principles if you don't display a hint of pragmatism? If you don't assess the landscape in which you're fighting?
You are too afraid to leap without any guarantee of success.
BULLETIN! There aren't any guarantees.
Sitting on the sidelines refusing to partake because the man doesn't fit your world view of Conservatism is selfish and stupid.
....not necessarily in that order.
@DCPatriot
Absolutely incorrect. What would be stupid is voting for what I don't believe in... over and over again.
It isn't about the 'landscape I am fighting', but rather only what I am fighting *FOR* ...Which y'all have exactly none of.
It is not pragmatic to support the opposite of what is to be held dear.
It is not pragmatic to vote against principle - To vote against self evident truth.
You are not winning when you are destroying the very principles you purport to stand upon.
Do you see that?
-
Wow. What a CF of a thread. Pass the popcorn!
-
LOL! ...says the guy inside the zoo behind the glass.
@DCPatriot
Hey pal, Hate to break it to ya, but YOU'RE the one in the concrete maze... I am out here in the sun drinking water from the ground and breathing clean air.
:tongue2:
-
Again with the tennis racket and backyard squirrel...
After 4 years of trying to get them to reassess themselves? You're GD right there are two sides on this forum.
Yes indeed. Gosh Darn right everyone is entitled to their opinion. Perhaps a nice glass of wine, or relaxing with a good book D.C.? :shrug:
-
Wow. What a CF of a thread. Pass the popcorn!
:2popcorn: :2popcorn: :pop41: :pop41: :pop41: :patriot:
-
Again with the tennis racket and backyard squirrel...
After 4 years of trying to get them to reassess themselves? You're GD right there are two sides on this forum.
Reassess MYSELF?
LOL! It has nothing to do with me.
-
Reassess MYSELF?
LOL! It has nothing to do with me.
Oh yes it does! If any one of these communist clowns becomes president for lack of one vote in your state I'm coming up there to get you! *look*
-
Be careful with that or you'll poop yourself.
Jussayin.
I'll have to get an Al Roker mask and schedule a WH visit.
-
@DCPatriot
Hey pal, Hate to break it to ya, but YOU'RE the one in the concrete maze... I am out here in the sun drinking water from the ground and breathing clean air.
:tongue2:
Well, good luck to you when you realize the year is 2019. :laugh:
-
Oh yes it does! If any one of these communist clowns becomes president for lack of one vote in your state I'm coming up there to get you! *look*
You'll need to bring your own horse .... but the drinking water just flows from the ground. 88devil
-
Again with the tennis racket and backyard squirrel...
After 4 years of trying to get them to reassess themselves? You're GD right there are two sides on this forum.
Ahem! More than two sides in this Forum.
-
Ahem! More than two sides in this Forum.
Geez ... I was trying to get @DCPatriot to calm down a bit. :shrug:
-
You'll need to bring your own horse .... but the drinking water just flows from the ground. 88devil
Well, good luck to you when you realize the year is 2019. :laugh:
June 2019
“Something I want to make clear to the media: We have among the cleanest and sharpest — crystal clean, you've heard me say, I want crystal clean — air and water anywhere on Earth,†Trump said during his rally in Florida on Tuesday.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/449239-trump-says-air-and-water-are-the-cleanest-theyve-ever-been-before
All hail the queen of the self-own.
-
June 2019
“Something I want to make clear to the media: We have among the cleanest and sharpest — crystal clean, you've heard me say, I want crystal clean — air and water anywhere on Earth,†Trump said during his rally in Florida on Tuesday.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/449239-trump-says-air-and-water-are-the-cleanest-theyve-ever-been-before
All hail the queen of the self-own.
Has anyone by any chance looked at DEMS' issues? They seem to all be focused on the New Green Deal in some way or another. Trump's comment in comparison is believable.
-
This thread is a cluster f. Anybody watching the rat debate in about one minute?
Anybody want to point and laugh and discuss the idiots?
-
This thread is a cluster f. Anybody watching the rat debate in about one minute?
Anybody want to point and laugh and discuss the idiots?
I will be watching.... been tired of this thread 3 years ago....
-
This thread is a cluster f. Anybody watching the rat debate in about one minute?
Anybody want to point and laugh and discuss the idiots?
I'll pass...I'd much rather watch the storm that's rolling in...ought to be a rainbow out there.
-
I will be watching.... been tired of this thread 3 years ago....
Same.
-
Same.
I started a thread:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,370351.msg2021429/topicseen.html#msg2021429 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,370351.msg2021429/topicseen.html#msg2021429)
-
Look Maw, another Trump/Cruz war, that I didn't start.
-
Look Maw, another Trump/Cruz war, that I didn't start.
No, but you wish you did. Admit it.
-
I'm doing more important things. Watching a fine pitchers duel between the Astros and Indians.
-
Oh yes it does! If any one of these communist clowns becomes president for lack of one vote in your state I'm coming up there to get you! *look*
Yeah right... Does that include the communist clown on the 'Right'?
:tongue2:
-
I'll have to get an Al Roker mask and schedule a WH visit.
:silly: :beer: :seeya:
-
Well, good luck to you when you realize the year is 2019. :laugh:
As if the year matters. Mere sophistry.
:tongue2:
-
Anybody want to point and laugh and discuss the idiots?
I thought that's what I am doing here. :shrug: :whistle:
:beer:
-
@DCPatriot
Hey pal, Hate to break it to ya, but YOU'RE the one in the concrete maze... I am out here in the sun drinking water from the ground and breathing clean air.
:tongue2:
LOL! Not the analogy to what I was referring. You're a lovable freak, @roamer_1 :laugh:
-
Ahem! More than two sides in this Forum.
888high58888
-
888high58888
:beer: :beer:
-
Applewood wrote:
"Since Republicans lost the house after Trump became president, I don't think congressional Republicans have benefitted all that much from his presidency."
Gee...
Ya think if they'd cooperated with him and pushed through his agenda during the first two years, when they were in the majority, that they might not have squandered and LOST that majority ....?
-
Applewood wrote:
"Since Republicans lost the house after Trump became president, I don't think congressional Republicans have benefitted all that much from his presidency."
Gee...
Ya think if they'd cooperated with him and pushed through his agenda during the first two years, when they were in the majority, that they might not have squandered and LOST that majority ....?
@Fishrrman
Trump didn't want to work with Republicans either. He started his presidency complaining and insulting congresspeople from his own party.
So I would say the blame for not getting things done and any resulting loss of the presidency and/or both houses of congress lies with Trump as well as Republicans in congress. Despite Trump supporters' claims to the contrary, he shares the blame along with the rest.
-
(https://www.emojirequest.com/images/PieFaceEmoji.jpg)
-
The only reason that no one in the GOP has a chance against Trump is because of the group of people in the GOP who see him as the Messiah, who cannot be replaced.
If the GOP were wise enough to give us a strong conservative candidate with even a modicum of self-control and decency, we could beat any socialist the left gives us.
As it stands, reasonable people and consistent conservatives have no choice again in 2020.
I give you Ted Cruz.
-
Yes, we need to STOP electing the same people. I couldn't agree more. Problem is, that very often, there isn't a conservative who challenges the incumbents. Therefore, choices are limited; abstain from voting for the undesirable incumbent, vote 3rd party or vote DEM.
At this point in time, in the case of President Trump, for myself, I just don't see abstaining or voting DEM as an alternative. I wish the Constitution Party would actually succeed to where they're on the ballot in all 50 states -- that's never happened -- even as a write in.
So here we sit. As stated before, I voted 3rd party during the Bammy/McCain election -- and -- didn't make a darn bit of difference, nor did losing that election wake up the GOP.
So again, and I'm just not addressing you in particular -- what is our alternative in 2020?? No one is challenging Trump.
Close, but the problem actually is that those already in office refuse to step down. They like their little fiefdom and percs and do not like it disturbed.
-
Every congressional house seat is up every two years. A retirement from a house seat presents an open seat.
(Just trying to set the nomenclature for rounds three and four of this great debate.)
What has that to do with the comment on the Senate going to the Dems?
-
Applewood wrote:
"Since Republicans lost the house after Trump became president, I don't think congressional Republicans have benefitted all that much from his presidency."
Gee...
Ya think if they'd cooperated with him and pushed through his agenda during the first two years, when they were in the majority, that they might not have squandered and LOST that majority ....?
:laugh:
DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!! :2popcorn:
-
There was still a bit of an ordered approach to where and how spending bills were generated and sent up for approval even under King Franklin I.
They didn't really start becoming the norm IIRC until Tipsy O'Neill was Speaker and it was used as a weapon of sorts to try and blunt the reforms Reagan was trying to enact.
@txradioguy
Therein lies the root of the problem. The career pols from both branches of the ruling party are only there to serve themselves,not the nation. Trump breaks this mold because he is there to serve his ego instead of his bank account,and that has all the professional elected thieves foaming at the mouth.
If you never understand anything else about politics,understand this. Trump can't be bought. He was born into money and will have money all his life regardless of what happens. His ego and his place in the history books is what drives him,and this can be nothing BUT bad news for the entrenched pols who have became wealthy from selling their offices.
-
How soon they forget that we offered a 'VIABLE' alternative up until they turned our mics off at the GOP Convention.
Needs to be repeated.
The Conservatives in the Republican party were told we weren't needed or wanted in 2016.
I personally don't understand why the Trump GOPe party that exists now is upset that we haven't embraced their god.
Their god told us to get lost.
-
But imagine how much better off if so many people hadn't bought into the notion...fictitious as it was...that Trump was our only hope of beating Hillary.
@txradioguy
Really? Don't tell me,let me guess,ok. Ted Cruz,your homie,right?
-
Needs to be repeated.
The Conservatives in the Republican party were told we weren't needed or wanted in 2016.
I personally don't understand why the Trump GOPe party that exists now is upset that we haven't embraced their god.
Their god told us to get lost.
And yet, here you are! happy77
-
The situation is fluid. Remember, it has only been in the last three weeks that Trump has tweeted for folks to go back to their own countries and denounced an entire city as unfit for human habitation. It is now, just within the last three weeks, that the mainstream media has given up all pretense of respect for the Presidency and concluded that Trump is "racist" and deserves not re-election but prison.
Cannot folks see that this is all becoming a fatal distraction from the issues that matter - growth, immigration, conservative judges? We can win on these issues - but can we do so through the dense fog of unrelenting Trump-hate? I want to plant the seed that Trump's nomination and likely defeat is NOT inevitable, and that his reason and legacy CAN be appealed to.
I think sometimes that folks are resigned to riding this runaway train all the way to the bottom. That's nuts. It is time to suggest to the President that he has done well by changing the nation's direction, but that a new leader is needed to prevent a reaction that will destroy all that he has accomplished.
So, Which Republican would you have become the focus of the Left's frustration and hatred for not hastening to bind America in the chains of Global Socialism/Communism?
Really, if you extrapolate Leftist policies to their conclusion, that is what we are trying to keep from devolving into. The Left will vent on whomever stands in the way with all the shrill vitriol to which they have become accustomed. Only under a Leftist, there will be little to stand in the way of their Communist Dreams.
Remember, these people proudly wear T-shirts with the image of a murderer of peasant farmers and call that a cry for freedom.
You fight with the Army you have, not the one you want. Problem is, that the open borders crowd in the GOP hasn't been putting forth a full effort against the Leftists because they share some goals, just for different purposes.
-
Ah. How soon we forget. THX!
@The Ghost
Thanks for @txradioguy filling you in on Kasich. I hated that he left congress, but he needed to start the rest of his life. He married, worked for a Wall Street financial company, had children, then became the Governor of Ohio. Some here can't stand Kasich, but Bob's son, who is a definite conservative, feels Kasich has done a good job as Governor.
We continue to go to St. Francis Catholic Church; we are in a big building phase - updating the present sanctuary part, and building another building to have another sanctuary, meeting rooms, school rooms, etc. We have been out of the present sanctuary since June, be back in it in September.
-
And yet, here you are! happy77
:silly: Yep, got a ringside seat, and no dog in the fight. At best it's a question of who to vote against.
If I had my druthers, there'd be an option to fire everyone and start with a clean slate.
-
And yet, here you are! happy77
Yep.
Cause I don't obey the dictates of false gods.
-
Yep.
Cause I don't obey the dictates of false gods.
You referred to him as a god. Not me.
Relax. Buy a new pair of shoes or something. wink777
Did you know the secret to perfect Clams Casino is the breadcrumbs? :laugh:
-
You referred to him as a god. Not me.
Relax. Buy a new pair of shoes or something. wink777
Did you know the secret to perfect Clams Casino is the breadcrumbs? :laugh:
Hint: FALSE god.
And as much as I love the condescension, I hate shopping.... especially for shoes. :cool:
-
Good to see the CF is still going
-
Good to see the CF is still going
Doing my duty to DC. happy77
-
Did you know the secret to perfect Clams Casino is the breadcrumbs? :laugh:
It’s actually the bacon - I prefer pancetta.
-
So here we sit. As stated before, I voted 3rd party during the Bammy/McCain election -- and -- didn't make a darn bit of difference, nor did losing that election wake up the GOP.
People can vote or not vote as their conscience dictates. However, anyone who expects not voting to "send a message" is missing the mark:
1) A non-vote could be for any number of reasons -- the candidate was perceived as too conservative, too liberal, too corrupt, too or not enough...whatever. And that means a non-vote can be interpreted any number of ways by whomever you are trying to target with that "message". Maybe the excuse/explanation will be "right candidate, bad campaign." Maybe it's that the candidate wasn't aggressive enough, or had one particular gaffe, or was right/wrong on a particular issue. Whatever it is, "non-votes" don't come with annotations that let anyone know why you didn't vote. So if people don't vote to "send a message", the message being received may not be anything like the message they intended.
2) And exactly who is someone trying to reach with that message? The real culprits for the wrong person getting nominated are the primary voters, not "the party". And the odds on all those other voters understanding clearly the message someone intends to send with a non-vote, and then reacting to that non-vote as hoped, is miniscule.
-
A vote is a vote; it doesn't send a message. Sending messages is what we're doing now, advocating our positions in the public sphere when such advocacy just might have an impact.
It appears too many Republicans are fatalistic about this election, aware that Trump's vulnerabilities may well propel the Dems to total victory but resigned to that inevitability based on some notion that Trump is fundamentally selfish and egotistical and would rather go down fighting. Or maybe relishing that martyrdom right along with him.
I refuse to accept that inevitability. There is both time and precedent (LBJ) for a President to be persuaded that his own legacy requires the changing of the guard. And if a lifetime politico like LBJ can be persuaded, then why cannot a citizen politician like Trump who ran for the purpose of starting a fire? If Trump wants that fire to continue, he needs to recognize the wisdom of passing the torch to another.
-
People can vote or not vote as their conscience dictates. However, anyone who expects not voting to "send a message" is missing the mark:
1) A non-vote could be for any number of reasons -- the candidate was perceived as too conservative, too liberal, too corrupt, too or not enough...whatever. And that means a non-vote can be interpreted any number of ways by whomever you are trying to target with that "message". Maybe the excuse/explanation will be "right candidate, bad campaign." Maybe it's that the candidate wasn't aggressive enough, or had one particular gaffe, or was right/wrong on a particular issue. Whatever it is, "non-votes" don't come with annotations that let anyone know why you didn't vote. So if people don't vote to "send a message", the message being received may not be anything like the message they intended.
2) And exactly who is someone trying to reach with that message? The real culprits for the wrong person getting nominated are the primary voters, not "the party". And the odds on all those other voters understanding clearly the message someone intends to send with a non-vote, and then reacting to that non-vote as hoped, is miniscule.
Agreed. Though I wasn't trying to send any message by voting 3rd party. I truly wanted the candidate that I voted for seated in the oval office.
-
It appears too many Republicans are fatalistic about this election, aware that Trump's vulnerabilities may well propel the Dems to total victory but resigned to that inevitability based on some notion that Trump is fundamentally selfish and egotistical and would rather go down fighting. Or maybe relishing that martyrdom right along with him.
From what I recall, your hope is that Mitch McConnell could approach Trump, suggest to him that the only way to preserve his legacy is to step aside, and that Trump would do so. Okay, I think that's farfetched, but whatever.
But exactly what is it you expect the rest of us to do in the meantime?
I refuse to accept that inevitability. There is both time and precedent (LBJ) for a President to be persuaded that his own legacy requires the changing of the guard. And if a lifetime politico like LBJ can be persuaded, then why cannot a citizen politician like Trump who ran for the purpose of starting a fire? If Trump wants that fire to continue, he needs to recognize the wisdom of passing the torch to another.
Just as you refuse to accept the inevitability that Trump will be the nominee, Trump would refuse to accept the inevitability that he will lose to the Democrat nominee in the general election. And based on what happened in the 2016 election, where so many of the people who want him to step aside because he couldn't win then are claiming he can't win in 2020...I can't say I blame him.
-
Agreed. Though I wasn't trying to send any message by voting 3rd party. I truly wanted the candidate that I voted for seated in the oval office.
I understand -- I was just riffing off you're observation that the wake-up call didn't happen. They never do.
-
People can vote or not vote as their conscience dictates. However, anyone who expects not voting to "send a message" is missing the mark:
1) A non-vote could be for any number of reasons -- the candidate was perceived as too conservative, too liberal, too corrupt, too or not enough...whatever. And that means a non-vote can be interpreted any number of ways by whomever you are trying to target with that "message". Maybe the excuse/explanation will be "right candidate, bad campaign." Maybe it's that the candidate wasn't aggressive enough, or had one particular gaffe, or was right/wrong on a particular issue. Whatever it is, "non-votes" don't come with annotations that let anyone know why you didn't vote. So if people don't vote to "send a message", the message being received may not be anything like the message they intended.
2) And exactly who is someone trying to reach with that message? The real culprits for the wrong person getting nominated are the primary voters, not "the party". And the odds on all those other voters understanding clearly the message someone intends to send with a non-vote, and then reacting to that non-vote as hoped, is miniscule.
@Maj. Bill Martin
You are making too much sense.
Who knows where that sort of thing can lead?
Stop that! Stop that now,before you break the internet!
-
From what I recall, your hope is that Mitch McConnell could approach Trump, suggest to him that the only way to preserve his legacy is to step aside, and that Trump would do so. Okay, I think that's farfetched, but whatever.
But exactly what is it you expect the rest of us to do in the meantime?
@Jazzhead @Maj. Bill Martin
Break into hysterical laughter?
-
@Jazzhead @Maj. Bill Martin
Break into hysterical laughter?
Exactly. Mitch seems to be afraid of his own shadow -- having a coke and burger with Trump and suggesting that he needs to step aside for the good of party??? :rolling:
-
Exactly. Mitch seems to be afraid of his own shadow -- having a coke and burger with Trump and suggesting that he needs to step aside for the good of party??? :rolling:
Like many, you underestimate Mitch. He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch. He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.
-
The House Is Already Losing at Least 11 Republicans—And That Number Could Rise
https://fortune.com/2019/07/30/house-republican-departures-retirements?utm=newsbreak
-
Like many, you underestimate Mitch. He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch. He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.
@Jazzhead
You see him as a solution. I see him as being at the core of the problem.
-
Like many, you underestimate Mitch. He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch. He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.
Trump had something to do with those solid jurists as well. Maybe more than Mitch, since these solid nominees just started flowing.
Trump, the guy you wanna get rid of.
-
Like many, you underestimate Mitch. He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch. He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.
Exactly. When the history books are written, in the chapters on the federal judiciary, McConnell will be identified as a much more important, influential actor than Trump.
-
Trump had something to do with those solid jurists as well. Maybe more than Mitch, since these solid nominees just started flowing.
Trump, the guy you wanna get rid of.
Trump has had very little to do with the nominees, other than generally following the instructions given him by the federalist and the others working to remold the judiciary. Trump following orders rather than his own twitter muse is why the judiciary is the one true bright star in this otherwise addle-pated administration.
-
Trump had something to do with those solid jurists as well. Maybe more than Mitch, since these solid nominees just started flowing.
Trump, the guy you wanna get rid of.
I give him due credit, but why not continue this progress for the next four years? That requires a GOP President and Senate. If Trump's the nominee, I fear we lose both.
-
Trump has had very little to do with the nominees, other than generally following the instructions given him by the federalist and the others working to remold the judiciary. Trump following orders rather than his own twitter muse is why the judiciary is the one true bright star in this otherwise addle-pated administration.
No nomination = no confermation.
-
Trump had something to do with those solid jurists as well. Maybe more than Mitch, since these solid nominees just started flowing.
Trump, the guy you wanna get rid of.
Trump:
1. Got elected.
2. Made appointments like he said he was when running.
Unlike Presidents Dole, McCain, Romney, Kasich, etc.
No Republican except Trump can win over the democrat.
The next best Republican is most certainly a reversion to previous talk-nice, play gentle losers.
-
No nomination = no confermation.
Which is why it’s a good thing the judiciary is the one place where Trump is showing some intelligence and following the instructions of those who really do know what they’re doing. Like McConnell.
In this case, it’s a good thing Trump is being a rubber-stamp, although that’s not really something he should be overly proud of.
-
Which is why it’s a good thing the judiciary is the one place where Trump is showing some intelligence and following the instructions of those who really do know what they’re doing. Like McConnell.
In this case, it’s a good thing Trump is being a rubber-stamp, although that’s not really something he should be overly proud of.
Whatever his motivations, he is STILL the one making those nominations and there is nothing that says he has to.
-
Whatever his motivations, he is STILL the one making those nominations and there is nothing that says he has to.
Great. You’re absolutely correct that he could be screwing that up too, if he were following his own predilections and not the instructions of others. At least he’s doing one thing right. It’s too bad he won’t listen to smart people on other areas. He’s certainly no great shakes when it comes to negotiating things: North Korea, for example.
-
Great. You’re absolutely correct that he could be screwing that up too, if he were following his own predilections and not the instructions of others. At least he’s doing one thing right. It’s too bad he won’t listen to smart people on other areas. He’s certainly no great shakes when it comes to negotiating things: North Korea, for example.
All I know is that he has done more in 3 years to move the ball in my direction than anyone else has since Reagan.
-
All I know is that he has done more in 3 years to move the ball in my direction than anyone else has since Reagan.
And .... he has thoroughly pissed off the radical/extreme idiot left in the process. It's a win-win....lol.
-
All I know is that he has done more in 3 years to move the ball in my direction than anyone else has since Reagan.
Pretty much. Like him or not, right now he IS the one standing between us and the radical liberal left and their intent to destroy our Republic.
Those GOP that have decided to retire supposedly because of Trump were part of the RINO brigade anyways ... so we can only pray and hope that they will be replaced with those more conservative.
-
Like many, you underestimate Mitch. He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch. He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.
How many GOP senators retired prior to Reagan's 2nd term?
Did he have to deal with the same human weakness regarding loss of committee majorities and power?
During the Presidential election, most people vote straight Party ticket all the way down. Next year, it will be a 'no brainer'.
-
Exactly. When the history books are written, in the chapters on the federal judiciary, McConnell will be identified as a much more important, influential actor than Trump.
Ha! Not if the bunch currently cranking out His/Herstory is the group that publishes it.
-
Like many, you underestimate Mitch. He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch. He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.
Actually many here...as well as in the Commonwealth over estimated what McConnell would do as Majority Leader both times he's held the position.
He singlehandedly helped Obama deliver most of his agenda in the 8 years he was President. Working behind the scenes with Obama while everyone else was on recess to get things done that Obama wanted passed...to include that illegal unconstitutional deal with Iran. He outright lied to Republicans about getting rid of Obamacare "root and branch". He shut real conservatives out of working in positions in the steering committee and the research service and replaced them with his cronies. Mitch is willing to to work behind the scenes even if it means betraying his constituents and other Republican members of the senate if it's beneficial to him.
Mitch only cares about Mitch and that's why he and a few others...need to go.
-
Actually many here...as well as in the Commonwealth over estimated what McConnell would do as Majority Leader both times he's held the position.
He singlehandedly helped Obama deliver most of his agenda in the 8 years he was President. Working behind the scenes with Obama while everyone else was on recess to get things done that Obama wanted passed...to include that illegal unconstitutional deal with Iran. He outright lied to Republicans about getting rid of Obamacare "root and branch". He shut real conservatives out of working in positions in the steering committee and the research service and replaced them with his cronies. Mitch is willing to to work behind the scenes even if it means betraying his constituents and other Republican members of the senate if it's beneficial to him.
Mitch only cares about Mitch and that's why he and a few others...need to go.
:amen:
-
People can vote or not vote as their conscience dictates. However, anyone who expects not voting to "send a message" is missing the mark:
The opposite is also true, @Maj. Bill Martin
voting *for* someone when you don't support the platform, or don't believe in the man, is still translated as support - As mandate.
The difference being that you have affirmatively helped to put that thing in power.
It is in the end, nothing but a popularity game, when principles are not applied.
And I have never liked the popular crowd.
-
Actually many here...as well as in the Commonwealth over estimated what McConnell would do as Majority Leader both times he's held the position.
He singlehandedly helped Obama deliver most of his agenda in the 8 years he was President. Working behind the scenes with Obama while everyone else was on recess to get things done that Obama wanted passed...to include that illegal unconstitutional deal with Iran. He outright lied to Republicans about getting rid of Obamacare "root and branch". He shut real conservatives out of working in positions in the steering committee and the research service and replaced them with his cronies. Mitch is willing to to work behind the scenes even if it means betraying his constituents and other Republican members of the senate if it's beneficial to him.
Mitch only cares about Mitch and that's why he and a few others...need to go.
Well put! :patriot:
-
The opposite is also true, @Maj. Bill Martin
voting *for* someone when you don't support the platform, or don't believe in the man, is still translated as support - As mandate.
The difference being that you have affirmatively helped to put that thing in power.
It is in the end, nothing but a popularity game, when principles are not applied.
And I have never liked the popular crowd.
Precisely. A vote in favor is seen as approval.
Abstentia is seen as tacit approval.
Only a vote for something else is seen as rejection. While Third Parties may be looked down on because they don't have the clout the 'big boys' have (yet, remember the Whigs), as the percentage of third party votes increases, so does the obvious and emphatic rejection of the Pubbies or the Dems. At present the calculus is one of whether the third party helps or hurts among the big two, but it could become one of how many votes are being lost and why if the margins get thinner. (They don't get much thinner than last time around, and with W.) The GOP didn't lose those votes to the Left, they lost them on the Right, and with those who just got so disgusted they stayed home.
-
Actually many here...as well as in the Commonwealth over estimated what McConnell would do as Majority Leader both times he's held the position.
He singlehandedly helped Obama deliver most of his agenda in the 8 years he was President. Working behind the scenes with Obama while everyone else was on recess to get things done that Obama wanted passed...to include that illegal unconstitutional deal with Iran. He outright lied to Republicans about getting rid of Obamacare "root and branch". He shut real conservatives out of working in positions in the steering committee and the research service and replaced them with his cronies. Mitch is willing to to work behind the scenes even if it means betraying his constituents and other Republican members of the senate if it's beneficial to him.
Mitch only cares about Mitch and that's why he and a few others...need to go.
@txradioguy
Yeah,that's the way I see it,too. I would only add that he he seems to care about his Chinese wife/handler.
-
Precisely. A vote in favor is seen as approval.
Abstentia is seen as tacit approval.
Only a vote for something else is seen as rejection. While Third Parties may be looked down on because they don't have the clout the 'big boys' have (yet, remember the Whigs), as the percentage of third party votes increases, so does the obvious and emphatic rejection of the Pubbies or the Dems. At present the calculus is one of whether the third party helps or hurts among the big two, but it could become one of how many votes are being lost and why if the margins get thinner. (They don't get much thinner than last time around, and with W.) The GOP didn't lose those votes to the Left, they lost them on the Right, and with those who just got so disgusted they stayed home.
That's exactly right. The battle is always pitched as though it is a war between two sides, stealing voters from each other... And it is...
Till Conservatives hear the clarion call and the factions come together... There are far more not voting than the difference between the two parties. The money shot is getting the disaffected Conservatives to the polls. Conservatism works, every time it's tried.
-
The opposite is also true, @Maj. Bill Martin
voting *for* someone when you don't support the platform, or don't believe in the man, is still translated as support - As mandate.
I disagree. A vote for someone means only that you'd prefer that person win over the alternative. Why you prefer them, or how "good" you consider them in an absolute sense, or whether their policies are ones you personally endorse, can't be determined by the mere fact of a vote. It's a statement of relative preference, not absolute preference.
@roamer_1
-
I disagree. A vote for someone means only that you'd prefer that person win over the alternative. Why you prefer them, or how "good" you consider them in an absolute sense, or whether their policies are ones you personally endorse, can't be determined by the mere fact of a vote. It's a statement of relative preference, not absolute preference.
But that is not how it is taken @Maj. Bill Martin .
Nobody does all that navel gazing. Tumpy went forth like he had a mandate, even though it was a very narrow win, and with a depressed electorate.
And I will bet you money that had it gone the other way, Clinton would have done the same.
There is nothing for it. You only have an affirmative vote, and the vote you cast is approval of the agenda and the man.
All the rest is nonsense.
-
@roamer_1
But that is not how it is taken @Maj. Bill Martin .
Taken by whom, exactly? Trump won the GOP nomination with less than 45% of the GOP vote, yet he got over 90% of the Republican votes in the general election. Very clearly, he was not the Republican a majority of Republicans preferred, but they preferred him to the Democrat alternative. Most of the people with whom I interact completely understand the concept of voting for someone with whom you have some disagreements, simply because you believe the alternative is worse. The whole idea of "if you voted for him, it means you support everything he does/stands for" is a strawman. It simply is not true, people know it isn't true, but say it anyway because they think it gives them a rhetorical advantage.
Nobody does all that navel gazing. Tumpy went forth like he had a mandate, even though it was a very narrow win, and with a depressed electorate.
You're the one doing navel gazing, and reading into other peoples' votes things that are not there. My vote can fairly be read as "I preferred the things Trump advocated over the things Hillary advocated." That's particularly true over the two biggest issues on which he ran -- the Supreme Court, and border security. So I don't have an issue with that. But trying to impute "your vote means that you approve of all of his statements and personal conduct" is without any rational basis.
You only have an affirmative vote, and the vote you cast is approval of the agenda and the man.
More navel gazing. And no, it isn't. The vast majority of people understand that a vote is an expression of relative preference -- the idea that "I don't really like either of these two, but I think X is worse so I'm voting for Y" has been openly discussed and acknowledged by for decades. We talk about it all the time here -- the "lesser of two evils" vote. To pretend such votes don't exist, and that they are all just blanket endorsements of candidates, defies reality. You and others may disagree with it as a matter of political strategy, but saying "it means you support everything about them" is very much a minority view. And I'm not certainly not going the views of an idiosyncratic minority determine how I will vote.
So, read into it whatever you want. Doesn't make it true.
-
The whole idea of "if you voted for him, it means you support everything he does/stands for" is a strawman. It simply is not true, people know it isn't true, but say it anyway because they think it gives them a rhetorical advantage.
And I thought I was the only person who feels that way. One can always find a policy or decision that is not agreeable to all, no matter who the politician in question is. It's quite unfair to tar his followers with that and call them "unprincipled." It's up there with "If you don't vote for my guy, you are for the opposition."
I'm not going to agree with any politician's actions 100%, unless that politician is me.
-
And I thought I was the only person who feels that way. One can always find a policy or decision that is not agreeable to all, no matter who the politician in question is. It's quite unfair to tar his followers with that and call them "unprincipled." It's up there with "If you don't vote for my guy, you are for the opposition."
I'm not going to agree with any politician's actions 100%, unless that politician is me.
@Cyber Liberty
You feel that way, I feel that way...and so does just about everyone else. But somehow, that reality gets ignored in a lot of political debates. It's just really odd.
-
Taken by whom, exactly?
[...]
The whole idea of "if you voted for him, it means you support everything he does/stands for" is a strawman. It simply is not true, people know it isn't true, but say it anyway because they think it gives them a rhetorical advantage.
Then it should be an easy thing, @Maj. Bill Martin , to tell me how your vote expresses all of that discrimination. How that single act transmits to the politician all the nuances that you claim are there...
You will not because you cannot. In fact, continuing to support moderate or even liberal Republicans *with your votes* is EXACTLY what keeps them in power.
It isn't a rhetorical point, it is a bare fact.
-
Then it should be an easy thing, @Maj. Bill Martin , to tell me how your vote expresses all of that discrimination. How that single act transmits to the politician all the nuances that you claim are there...
You've got it backwards. It's not that the vote transmits any nuances -- it's that it only transmits one thing: that I would prefer that candidate be elected as opposed to the Democrat nominee. That's it. It does not transmit that I support any particular positions, or any particular qualities of a particular candidate.
It may mean I love them both, but love one just a bit more. It may mean I hate them both, but hate one a bit less. Maybe I sorta like one, and sorta hate the other. Who the hell knows? The only thing it means for sure is that I prefer one be elected over the other.
-
You've got it backwards. It's not that the vote transmits any nuances -- it's that it only transmits one thing: that I would prefer that candidate be elected as opposed to the Democrat nominee. That's it. It does not transmit that I support any particular positions, or any particular qualities of a particular candidate.
It may mean I love them both, but love one just a bit more. It may mean I hate them both, but hate one a bit less. Maybe I sorta like one, and sorta hate the other. Who the hell knows? The only thing it means for sure is that I prefer one be elected over the other.
@Maj. Bill Martin
No, I have it dang well right - Or there would be more Conservatives elected than RINOs in the Republican party. It is Republican votes sustaining those RINOs.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
No, I have it dang well right - Or there would be more Conservatives elected than RINOs in the Republican party. It is Republican votes sustaining those RINOs.
I am confused.
I always thought that is was because the establishment-backed "RINO" candidates typically have more resources and funding behind their campaigns.... hence leading to an advantage come election day.... I've seen it time after time.... the more conservative, usually the "upstart," candidate struggling to win the primary is so over-matched in terms of dollars and party-based resources, that most voters see their names for the first time on the primary ballot. And human nature causes more people to cast their vote for the name that they at least recognize....
I always thought that was the problem at hand....
:shrug:
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
No, I have it dang well right - Or there would be more Conservatives elected than RINOs in the Republican party. It is Republican votes sustaining those RINOs.
It is Republican votes that sustain the "RINOs", and Republican votes that elect the "Conservatives" you apparently prefer. One thing's for certain - folks like yourself who cite "principles" to not vote at all (or to cast meaningless vanity votes for third party candidates) have chosen to withdraw from the process by which we citizens elect our representatives. That's fine - voting (or not voting) is a voluntary act, but it's always struck me as odd that, as interested in civic matters as you obviously are as evidenced by the articulate opinions you express on this board, you withdraw from the actual process of choosing.
You talk the talk but won't walk the walk, and insist that makes you virtuous? I just don't get it, @roamer_1
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
No, I have it dang well right - Or there would be more Conservatives elected than RINOs in the Republican party. It is Republican votes sustaining those RINOs.
You've lost me. I have no idea what that statement has to do with the meaning you personally attach to votes cast by other people, which is what we were discussing. Nobody asks the meaning behind a particular vote when it is counted. It counts exactly the same regardless of why someone cast it for a particular candidate.
As to this RINO v. conservatie issue you just raised, the reason some RINOs get elected is because they win GOP primaries. If you want to replace the RINOs with conservatives, you need to convince more GOP primary voters to vote for conservatives over RINOs. Of course, some GOP voters -- more so in some states than others -- aren't conservatives, so they're probably not going to do that. And some GOP voters place a higher priority on things like likability or character than they do on ideology, so you may have a hard time convincing them as well.
If we could magically replace all those non-conservative GOP voters with conservative GOP voters, that would solve the problem. Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible.
-
I am confused.
I always thought that is was because the establishment-backed "RINO" candidates typically have more resources and funding behind their campaigns.... hence leading to an advantage come election day.... I've seen it time after time.... the more conservative, usually the "upstart," candidate struggling to win the primary is so over-matched in terms of dollars and party-based resources, that most voters see their names for the first time on the primary ballot. And human nature causes more people to cast their vote for the name that they at least recognize....
I always thought that was the problem at hand....
:shrug:
I would accept that in part @EdJames , but that in itself expresses a certain Laissez-faire in the Republican electorate that basically says the same thing. If you are not willing to seek out the candidates, and judge them fairly, then your tacit approval of party politics is already rendered. Especially so in the primary, where even the pragmatists say one should vote their conscience.
-
I would accept that in part @EdJames , but that in itself expresses a certain Laissez-faire in the Republican electorate that basically says the same thing. If you are not willing to seek out the candidates, and judge them fairly, then your tacit approval of party politics is already rendered. Especially so in the primary, where even the pragmatists say one should vote their conscience.
Well, I suppose that it does. (I referred to it as human nature, not necessarily a positive aspect of it.)
Over the years I spent a fair amount of my time, energy, and dollars trying to get conservative candidates through the primary process. Some of our defeats (by two orders of magnitude in the tallied votes) were certainly depressing. Always the toughest when the "RINO" opponent is the incumbent.
As Major Bill notes, not all of the Republican primary voters will prefer the more conservative candidate, but sometimes I think that they could have been swayed if they at least knew the name of our guy/gal before the got the ballot....
-
It is Republican votes that sustain the "RINOs", and Republican votes that elect the "Conservatives" you apparently prefer. One thing's for certain - folks like yourself who cite "principles" to not vote at all (or to cast meaningless vanity votes for third party candidates) have chosen to withdraw from the process by which we citizens elect our representatives. That's fine - voting (or not voting) is a voluntary act, but it's always struck me as odd that, as interested in civic matters as you obviously are as evidenced by the articulate opinions you express on this board, you withdraw from the actual process of choosing.
You talk the talk but won't walk the walk, and insist that makes you virtuous? I just don't get it, @roamer_1
My understanding is that @roamer_1 does vote in the GOP primary for conservatives, and will vote for them in the general election if they win the primary. So he hasn't abandoned the process.
-
As Major Bill notes, not all of the Republican primary voters will prefer the more conservative candidate, but sometimes I think that they could have been swayed if they at least knew the name of our guy/gal before the got the ballot....
The most depressing thing for me to see is how important "likability" is for so many voters, both in the primaries and in the general election. You really can't even discuss voting with those people because it defaults to "I just like him/her better."
-
The most depressing thing for me to see is how important "likability" is for so many voters, both in the primaries and in the general election. You really can't even discuss voting with those people because it defaults to "I just like him/her better."
Likable...or cute. :shrug:
-
One thing's for certain - folks like yourself who cite "principles" to not vote at all (or to cast meaningless vanity votes for third party candidates) have chosen to withdraw from the process by which we citizens elect our representatives. That's fine - voting (or not voting) is a voluntary act, but it's always struck me as odd that, as interested in civic matters as you obviously are as evidenced by the articulate opinions you express on this board, you withdraw from the actual process of choosing.
There is a serious failure in logic to suppose one should vote *for* what one opposes.
There is likewise a serious failure in logic to vote against anything when your vote can only be a positive affirmation.
And lastly, it can hardly be a vanity to vote for a candidate that does in fact espouse what you believe in - In fact, that is the exact and expressed intention of the founders, that we all vote our conscience... And by and large, those pleas from our founders were made wrt the partisanship that they knew they were creating, and as a balm against it.
You talk the talk but won't walk the walk, and insist that makes you virtuous? I just don't get it, @roamer_1
Quite the opposite @Jazzhead - I do walk the walk, which is why I cannot support the choices so many of y'all make.
And I do not consider myself virtuous. That's an incendiary claim, and in a word, bullcrap.
-
You've lost me. I have no idea what that statement has to do with the meaning you personally attach to votes cast by other people, which is what we were discussing. Nobody asks the meaning behind a particular vote when it is counted. It counts exactly the same regardless of why someone cast it for a particular candidate.
I rest my case - your vote is only a positive affirmation. So when you positively affirm a RINO over a dem, you are in fact affirming the RINO agenda, not refusing the dem agenda.
As to this RINO v. conservatie issue you just raised, the reason some RINOs get elected is because they win GOP primaries. If you want to replace the RINOs with conservatives, you need to convince more GOP primary voters to vote for conservatives over RINOs. Of course, some GOP voters -- more so in some states than others -- aren't conservatives, so they're probably not going to do that. And some GOP voters place a higher priority on things like likability or character than they do on ideology, so you may have a hard time convincing them as well.
If we could magically replace all those non-conservative GOP voters with conservative GOP voters, that would solve the problem. Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible.
So in other words, the agenda - the various planks of the GOP - mean absolutely nothing.
-
Well, I suppose that it does. (I referred to it as human nature, not necessarily a positive aspect of it.)
Over the years I spent a fair amount of my time, energy, and dollars trying to get conservative candidates through the primary process. Some of our defeats (by two orders of magnitude in the tallied votes) were certainly depressing. Always the toughest when the "RINO" opponent is the incumbent.
As Major Bill notes, not all of the Republican primary voters will prefer the more conservative candidate, but sometimes I think that they could have been swayed if they at least knew the name of our guy/gal before the got the ballot....
That's right. But that has been so my whole life long. @EdJames . What is supposed to unite us is a common banner - an agenda that we believe in. That is not what we get, ever. Not a single gain, in my entire life, most of which was spent supporting and pulling for the big red 'R".
The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
What an incredible waste of time.
-
JUST IN: Senate leaves for five-week recess (link: http://hill.cm/8FqDocM (http://hill.cm/8FqDocM)) hill
-
My understanding is that @roamer_1 does vote in the GOP primary for conservatives, and will vote for them in the general election if they win the primary. So he hasn't abandoned the process.
A wee correction @Maj. Bill Martin ...
I will vote for any conservative, regardless of the brand, primary or otherwise.
In effect, the only time pragmatism or popularity enter into it for me is if a Conservative has a decidedly more popular chance than another conservative, wherein I will adjust my preference and get on board with the more likely victor.
My voting may tend to look Republican in the primary, but only to the point that Conservatives tend to be Republicans... and in that smaller factions do not have primaries.
The sum of that would be that I will certainly vote for a Republican Conservative over an independent or say, Constitution party Conservative, to ride a better bet they will get elected - But only where the two are near equal - Both being actual Conservatives.
-
I rest my case - your vote is only a positive affirmation.
The only "affirmation" is that they aren't as shitty as the candidate of the other party against whom you are running in the general election. And generally, I'd say that a RINO is better than, say, Elizabeth Warren. You may disagree. Also, incumbents -- including RINOs -- are all very well away that just because they won one primary, and one general election, doesn't mean they are immune from being tossed out next time. Most know that their win was opponent-dependent, and if the opponent changes to someone the voters like better, they'll lose.
So in other words, the agenda - the various planks of the GOP - mean absolutely nothing.
Are you talking about "the platform"?
If so, I don't think it is quite meaningless - it is often a basic statement of where the center of that party actually lies. It is useful to compare the platform of one party against the platform of the other as general guidance. But not every individual candidate is going to be fully supportive of every single thing in a platform. So, it isn't binding, and it isn't a guarantee of what will be accomplished. Exactly how much use it is...probably very little.
-
The only "affirmation" is that they aren't as shitty as the candidate of the other party against whom you are running in the general election. And generally, I'd say that a RINO is better than, say, Elizabeth Warren. You may disagree. Also, incumbents -- including RINOs -- are all very well away that just because they won one primary, and one general election, doesn't mean they are immune from being tossed out next time. Most know that their win was opponent-dependent, and if the opponent changes to someone the voters like better, they'll lose.
Nah - Once in, an incumbent is likely to stay. for decades.
And I would rather burn the damn 'big tent' down and suffer an Elizabeth Warren in order to throw the bastards out and bring in a crop that will actually DO something next time around.
Liberalism is winning because it has no opposition.
Are you talking about "the platform"?
If so, I don't think it is meaningless - it is often a basic statement of where the center of that party actually lies. So it is useful to compare the platform of one party against the platform of the other as general guidance. But not every individual candidate is going to be fully supportive of every single thing in a platform.
In fact, the party is not fully supportive of that platform - Not supportive AT ALL, having never in my life actually made a win - an actual gain. Not ONE. Liberals are dashing for their finish line, with huge gain over huge gain, and Republicans are jogging along, always and forever adjusting leftward.
Since I began voting in '80 to this day, Republican failure is so predictable that it can not possibly be mere incompetence. It is collusion...
-
You've lost me. I have no idea what that statement has to do with the meaning you personally attach to votes cast by other people, which is what we were discussing. Nobody asks the meaning behind a particular vote when it is counted. It counts exactly the same regardless of why someone cast it for a particular candidate.
He refuses to yield to your excellent point...as he had with the 'Binary Choice' POV.
Doesn't matter how much you love or hate the guy...it's only the number of votes that will determine who leads the Republic.
Anybody who stoops to a GOP Purity test and withholds their ballot (or wastes it as a protest) is aiding and abetting the other side.
And nobody is going to tell me this scientist here is 'that' dense. No way.
22222frying pan
roamer DC That's right @txradioguy I'm committing violence on somebody who disagrees with me. happy77
-
Nah - Once in, an incumbent is likely to stay. for decades.
And I would rather burn the damn 'big tent' down and suffer an Elizabeth Warren in order to throw the bastards out and bring in a crop that will actually DO something next time around.
Liberalism is winning because it has no opposition.
Okay, let's say the GOP fell apart. What percentage of the electorate do you think would sign on to a more conservative party?
-
Anybody who stoops to a GOP Purity test and withholds their ballot (or wastes it as a protest) is aiding and abetting the other side.
@DCPatriot
That ol score has been around so long, and the impurity is so great that y'all ARE the other side, right along with the other side.
The whole thing is a bullcrap sport, with nothing there but jerseys and ball caps.
Y'all are happily eating a multi-trillion dollar increase for nothing other than a chance to poke the other side in the eye. Big government - y'all just think you can do it better than the dems.
**nononono*
-
Geez ....people ... as Ted said "Vote your conscience"!!!
-
@DCPatriot
That ol score has been around so long, and the impurity is so great that y'all ARE the other side, right along with the other side.
The whole thing is a bullcrap sport, with nothing there but jerseys and ball caps.
Y'all are happily eating a multi-trillion dollar increase for nothing other than a chance to poke the other side in the eye. Big government - y'all just think you can do it better than the dems.
**nononono*
@roamer_1
It's not that at all. I don't give a damn about 3 generations in the future.
I selfishly only care about maintaining this Republic as the Founders intended for myself, my five children, four daughters-in-law and six grandchildren.
I would selfishly expect anybody who isn't a declared Democrat or any other political ideology to want the same thing.
The choice is personal freedoms vs. becoming a slave to the State.
Stop jerking around with this high horse virtue crap.
-
@roamer_1
It's not that at all. I don't give a damn about 3 generations in the future.
I selfishly only care about maintaining this Republic as the Founders intended for myself, my five children, four daughters-in-law and six grandchildren.
Ahh... So only TWO generations in the future... Speaking for myself, 'Securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity' should forever be extending far into the future.
I would selfishly expect anybody who isn't a declared Democrat or any other political ideology to want the same thing.
The choice is personal freedoms vs. becoming a slave to the State.
Stop jerking around with this high horse virtue crap.
And what exactly makes you think that TRILLIONS more in debt is making you free @DCPatriot ?
What personal freedom have you preserved?
American Conservatism Starts in the idea that liberty is couched firmly in Federalism - In civil libertarianism and small government.
WHERE IS THAT?
-
I'm too old to sit and argue with you.
Would rather have a prostate resection. :laugh:
-
Ahh... So only TWO generations in the future... Speaking for myself, 'Securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity' should forever be extending far into the future.
And what exactly makes you think that TRILLIONS more in debt is making you free @DCPatriot ?
What personal freedom have you preserved?
American Conservatism Starts in the idea that liberty is couched firmly in Federalism - In civil libertarianism and small government.
WHERE IS THAT?
:amen:
-
I'm too old to sit and argue with you.
Would rather have a prostate resection. :laugh:
@DCPatriot
That's fine pal... No fault no foul...
But if it doesn't even adhere to the very basis of Conservatism, How can you call it such?
There's the problem. I don't care what you do - That's your business. Knock yourself out. And where we meet, hail fellow, well met.
Just don't call it Conservatism, because by definition, it ain't. Which circles me right back around to the beginning of this latest episode - Why should I, as a Reaganite Conservative, vote for your guy and your agenda when it is not Conservative? When I legitimately see your movement and your leader as espousing big government liberalism?
-
The only "affirmation" is that they aren't as shitty as the candidate of the other party against whom you are running in the general election. And generally, I'd say that a RINO is better than, say, Elizabeth Warren. You may disagree. Also, incumbents -- including RINOs -- are all very well away that just because they won one primary, and one general election, doesn't mean they are immune from being tossed out next time. Most know that their win was opponent-dependent, and if the opponent changes to someone the voters like better, they'll lose.
Great campaign slogan. Vote for our guy because he's less shitty. (Hell, I bet the sonofagun has electrolytes, too!) --In essence, that is what has brought this great nation to this precipice.
Less shitty is still shitty.
Are you talking about "the platform"?
If so, I don't think it is quite meaningless - it is often a basic statement of where the center of that party actually lies. It is useful to compare the platform of one party against the platform of the other as general guidance. But not every individual candidate is going to be fully supportive of every single thing in a platform. So, it isn't binding, and it isn't a guarantee of what will be accomplished. Exactly how much use it is...probably very little.
If it is just a suggestion, it isn't much to stand on.
-
Great campaign slogan. Vote for our guy because he's less shitty. (Hell, I bet the sonofagun has electrolytes, too!) --In essence, that is what has brought this great nation to this precipice.
Less shitty is still shitty. If it is just a suggestion, it isn't much to stand on.
That's not the "slogan". There clearly will be a lot of people voting for a guy because they really like him. My point is that the mere fact that you're casting a vote for a guy does not mean you are a fan of everything about him, and may simply be trying to keep an opponent you believe to be worse out of power.
Or -- perhaps more likely -- there are things about the candidate you like, some things you don't, but you think the good outweighs the bad in comparison to the opponent. Anyone who considers a vote for a candidate equivalent to agreeing with that candidate on every single issue, and an endorsement of every person foible and idiosyncracy, is being willfully obtuse. Only the most pendantic twit would argue that everyone who voted for George W. Bush thought him getting a DUI was fantastic, or that those who voted for Trump saw nothing at all wrong with Trump's "grab them by the bleep" comment.
-
Great campaign slogan. Vote for our guy because he's less shitty
That's the choice many of us will be facing next year. It shouldn't have to be that way. And the bottom line is lots of folks will, like @roamer_1 , stay home. I seem to recall that Romney got more popular votes in 2012 than either Clinton or Trump received in 2016. What a shitty choice that was.
Why are we so cowed and submissive that we don't demand better???
-
That's not the "slogan". There clearly will be a lot of people voting for a guy because they really like him. My point is that the mere fact that you're casting a vote for a guy does not mean you are a fan of everything about him, and may simply be trying to keep an opponent you believe to be worse out of power.
Or -- perhaps more likely -- there are things about the candidate you like, some things you don't, but you think the good outweighs the bad in comparison to the opponent. Anyone who considers a vote for a candidate equivalent to agree with that candidate on every single issue, and an endorsement of every person foible and idiosyncracy, is being willfully obtuse. Only the most pendantic twit would argue that everyone who voted for George W. Bush thought him getting a DUI was fantastic, or that those who voted for Trump saw nothing at all wrong with Trump's "grab them by the bleep" comment.
This is a serious question, because I know you are a thoughtful person @Maj. Bill Martin .........
Is there never a point for you where the Republican candidate's negatives are a bridge too far, and where you simply cannot support that candidate by giving him/her your vote?
IOW, will you always vote for the Republican in every election in the future, or is there a point where you say, I cannot support this candidate?
-
That's the choice many of us will be facing next year. It shouldn't have to be that way. And the bottom line is lots of folks will, like @roamer_1 , stay home. I seem to recall that Romney got more popular votes in 2012 than either Clinton or Trump received in 2016. What a shitty choice that was.
Why are we so cowed and submissive that we don't demand better???
Don't forget that in 2016, Republicans at the Convention who were also Conservatives were told by the Trump GOP to get lost.
They weren't 'cowed." They were forcibly removed.
-
Will Hurd, only black Republican in House, retiring
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/455872-texas-gop-lawmaker-will-hurd-retiring
Geeez...we are never going to regain the House at this rate...
-
This is a serious question, because I know you are a thoughtful person @Maj. Bill Martin .........
Is there never a point for you where the Republican candidate's negatives are a bridge too far, and where you simply cannot support that candidate by giving him/her your vote?
IOW, will you always vote for the Republican in every election in the future, or is there a point where you say, I cannot support this candidate?
For me, several times. Maverick John McCain was my Senator.
-
This is a serious question, because I know you are a thoughtful person @Maj. Bill Martin .........
Is there never a point for you where the Republican candidate's negatives are a bridge too far, and where you simply cannot support that candidate by giving him/her your vote?
IOW, will you always vote for the Republican in every election in the future, or is there a point where you say, I cannot support this candidate?
@musiclady
I highly prioritize policy/issues over personality or personal characteristics, because those are the things that last and have legal impact on core freedoms and the lives of citizens long after the person is out of office. So if I don't vote for a Republican, it almost certainly will be because of their stance on issues. I was on the fence about voting for Trump, but was convinced to vote for him because of two issues: Nominations to the federal courts, and immigration. In both cases, he's been even more conservative than I'd hoped, so that's more than enough to earn my vote for 2020 despite my disagreement with him on some other issues.
As things now stand, I would not vote at all for Kasich, Flake, Yeb, and probably some others as well. I think all three of them are so wrong on immigration that I couldn't vote for them. I wouldn't even vote for Kasich for governor if he was running for re-election.
-
Will Hurd, only black Republican in House, retiring
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/455872-texas-gop-lawmaker-will-hurd-retiring
Geeez...we are never going to regain the House at this rate...
Rep. Hurd voted with pelousi more than the GOP. I'm sure this district (the largest, land mass wise, in the US) will switch back to dem.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/TX23_110.gif/220px-TX23_110.gif)
-
Don't forget that in 2016, Republicans at the Convention who were also Conservatives were told by the Trump GOP to get lost.
They weren't 'cowed." They were forcibly removed.
@musiclady
There is NOTHING politically "conservative" about being a fire-breathing bible-thumper. In FACT,it means just the opposite because actual conservatives fight against police states of every type.
-
That's the choice many of us will be facing next year. It shouldn't have to be that way. And the bottom line is lots of folks will, like @roamer_1 , stay home. I seem to recall that Romney got more popular votes in 2012 than either Clinton or Trump received in 2016.
That's actually not true. Both Hillary and Trump in 2016 got more popular votes than did Romney in 2012.
In 2012, Romney got 60,589,084 votes
https://www.270towin.com/2012_Election/ (https://www.270towin.com/2012_Election/)
In 2016, Trump got 62,980,160, and Hillary got 65,845,063
https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/ (https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/)
-
I highly prioritize policy/issues over personality or personal characteristics. So if I don't vote for a Republican, it almost certainly will be because of their stance on issues. I was on the fence about voting for Trump, but was convinced to vote for him because of two issues: Nominations to the federal courts, and immigration. In both cases, he's been even more conservative than I'd hoped, so that's more than enough to earn my vote for 2020 despite my disagreement with him on some other issues.
As things now stand, I would not vote at all for Kasich, Flake, Yeb, and probably some others as well. I think all three of them are so wrong on immigration that I couldn't vote for them.
I voted for Flake, several times as my Congressman. He was a very good Congressman so I voted for him for his one term as Senator. He's dead to me now. Never seen such a terrible reversal, and that came years before his profound hatred of all things Trump.
-
I highly prioritize policy/issues over personality or personal characteristics. So if I don't vote for a Republican, it almost certainly will be because of their stance on issues. I was on the fence about voting for Trump, but was convinced to vote for him because of two issues: Nominations to the federal courts, and immigration. In both cases, he's been even more conservative than I'd hoped, so that's more than enough to earn my vote for 2020 despite my disagreement with him on some other issues.
As things now stand, I would not vote at all for Kasich, Flake, Yeb, and probably some others as well. I think all three of them are so wrong on immigration that I couldn't vote for them.
So if John Kasich were running in 2016 against Hillary, you would not have voted for him?
(Not trying to trap you.......... just wanting to know).
The reason is, that for me, what you call "personal characteristics" trump issues. Serial adultery and perpetual dishonesty are back breakers...... and Trump is guilty on both counts.
For you it's issues and Kasich and jeb. But you do have a point where you say, "No more."
That's where I am with Trump.
-
Will Hurd, only black Republican in House, retiring
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/455872-texas-gop-lawmaker-will-hurd-retiring
Geeez...we are never going to regain the House at this rate...
@mystery-ak
He was shunned and attacked on a daily basis by the "Congresional Black Klan",as well as the mental midgets in the media,so I guess the pressure finally got to him.
I can't say as I blame him. It can't be fun to go to work every day and try too do your best,while being either ignored and insulted every day.
-
Will Hurd, only black Republican in House, retiring
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/455872-texas-gop-lawmaker-will-hurd-retiring
Geeez...we are never going to regain the House at this rate...
If Will Hurd is the answer for conservatives it must have been a damned stupid question! And BTW: Conservatives never have HAD the house.
-
@musiclady
There is NOTHING politically "conservative" about being a fire-breathing bible-thumper. In FACT,it means just the opposite because actual conservatives fight against police states of every type.
Don't you ever get tired of being Johnny-one-note-I-hate-Christians, pete??
Because you bore the heck out of me.
(Besides the fact that you are factually WRONG in your anti-morality mania........)
-
Don't forget that in 2016, Republicans at the Convention who were also Conservatives were told by the Trump GOP to get lost.
They weren't 'cowed." They were forcibly removed.
Exactly when did that happen, and how many conservatives were removed by force? I don't remember that at all.
-
For me, several times. Maverick John McCain was my Senator.
Then you too understand why there are many who are at that same point with Trump......
-
Exactly when did that happen, and how many conservatives were removed by force? I don't remember that at all.
At the convention. Told to shut up. Told they weren't wanted in Trump's party.
-
Don't you ever get tired of being Johnny-one-note-I-hate-Christians, pete??
@musiclady
WHY would I ever get tired of fighting an evil that wants to enslave me and everyone else while destroying America by turning it into a police state?
BTW,I hate Islam,too. They are nothing more,or less,than the flip side of your card.
-
So if John Kasich were running in 2016 against Hillary, you would not have voted for him?
@musiclady
I honestly don't remember enough about his 2016 campaign to know. But based on what I remember since then...I absolutely would not vote for him in 2020 regardless of who the Democrat nominee was. I think his entire "what I want to tell St. Peter when I'm at the pearly gates" schtick is just another version of the detestable "Jesus was a Socialist" argument.
The reason is, that for me, what you call "personal characteristics" trump issues. Serial adultery and perpetual dishonesty are back breakers...... and Trump is guilty on both counts.
I'll just say that I'd much, much rather have a President who is a moral reprobate in his personal life, but who preserves individual liberty for his 360 million fellow citizens, than a moral saint who wishes to destroy individual liberty, advance the weirdness of the gender wars, and pushes race-baiting and "white privilege". And I'd happily cast my vote for the former on election to try to make that happen.
I am curious about something. Let's say it ends up being Elizabeth Warren v Donald Trump. Though you won't be voting, would you have a preference as to which of them would win?
-
Then you too understand why there are many who are at that same point with Trump......
I certainly do, @musiclady. This is why I never called people who could not vote for Trump "Hillary supporters." That was a dishonest crock.
But, there's also truth that a vote is often decided by the opponent. I've been voting since '76, and only one time was I truly pleased with the Presidential candidate and happily voted for him...1984 and Reagan. Many times I found myself voting against someone rather than for them. I have a generally low opinion of all politicians. My fellow Primary voters ticked me off a few times, sticking me with a lousy choice.
-
I certainly do, @musiclady. This is why I never called people who could not vote for Trump "Hillary supporters." That was a dishonest crock.
But, there's also truth that a vote is often decided by the opponent. I've been voting since '76, and only one time was I truly pleased with the Presidential candidate and happily voted for him...1984 and Reagan. Many times I found myself voting against someone rather than for them. I have a generally low opinion of all politicians. My fellow Primary voters ticked me off a few times, sticking me with a lousy choice.
Exactly and ditto.
-
I certainly do, @musiclady. This is why I never called people who could not vote for Trump "Hillary supporters." That was a dishonest crock.
But, there's also truth that a vote is often decided by the opponent. I've been voting since '76, and only one time was I truly pleased with the Presidential candidate and happily voted for him...1984 and Reagan. Many times I found myself voting against someone rather than for them. I have a generally low opinion of all politicians. My fellow Primary voters ticked me off a few times, sticking me with a lousy choice.
I'm in that exact same boat and have worked my tail off to try and fix the primary system in the RP so that would be less likely to happen. Unfortunately, the other side won in 2016 and we will never see another conservative nominee from the RP as a result.
But I STILL believe there is some validity to this:
To refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils" puts one in the position of support for the greater of the same two evils by the simple act of not standing in the way of the greater evil’s eventually triumph.
-
2016 was the first time since Ronald Wilson Reagan that I actually voted for someone I genuinely liked for president and it wasn't Donald J. Trump.
Having said that, unless something drastically changes I will cast my vote for Trump in 2020. Not because I necessarily like him as a person but because he has performed admirably as president IMHO.
-
I'm in that exact same boat and have worked my tail off to try and fix the primary system in the RP so that would be less likely to happen. Unfortunately, the other side won in 2016 and we will never see another conservative nominee from the RP as a result.
But I STILL believe there is some validity to this:
To refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils" puts one in the position of support for the greater of the same two evils by the simple act of not standing in the way of the greater evil’s eventually triumph.
:thumbsup:
Evil thrives when good men (and women) do nothing. And I can't think of a bigger evil right now than the evil that the Democratic Party represents for the future of America.
-
The reason is, that for me, what you call "personal characteristics" trump issues. Serial adultery and perpetual dishonesty are back breakers...... and Trump is guilty on both counts.
@musiclady
That's probably true for me too - Almost as a matter of mechanics. Foremost: Can I trust this guy? Will he keep his word?
So in that one question, character takes primacy, because if I cannot trust him, I can take no guarantee from his promises, making any promise worthless.
Thereafter, record. If he has a record that reflects conservatism (or at least civil-libertarianism), One can be fairly certain that his motivations, and in that his actions, will continue in that way.
Then general historical stand on issues of the day...
THEN come personality and promises.
-
For me, several times. Maverick John McCain was my Senator.
There was and is nothing on this planet that would make me cast a vote for John McAin't.
-
@musiclady
That's probably true for me too - Almost as a matter of mechanics. Foremost: Can I trust this guy? Will he keep his word?
To be honest, I really don't "trust" any of them to keep their word. At least, not until they've actually been elected and I can see how closely they are hewing to what they promised.
But I figure I've got a better shot of getting what I want by voting for the person who promises to do things I like, than the person who is promising to do things I don't like.
-
But I STILL believe there is some validity to this:
To refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils" puts one in the position of support for the greater of the same two evils by the simple act of not standing in the way of the greater evil’s eventually triumph.
That is a false statement.
Lesser evil is not the enemy of the greater evil. Good is the enemy of evil.
-
To be honest, I really don't "trust" any of them to keep their word. At least, not until they've actually been elected and I can see how closely they are hewing to what they promised.
But I figure I've got a better shot of getting what I want by voting for the person who promises to do things I like, than the person who is promising to do things I don't like.
@Maj. Bill Martin
They ALL promise what you like. Every single damn one of em turns into a Conservative with a halo on the stump. That's exactly why I hold promises from the stump in such low regard... In fact, without regard, unless the candidate has a record that reflects those promises, lending them credence.
That is why I put so much emphasis on record. If they did the right thing when it didn't matter, then they'll do the right thing now.
-
That is a false statement.
Lesser evil is not the enemy of the greater evil. Good is the enemy of evil.
I understand that you genuinely believe that. And so do I in the final analysis but you cannot turn an aircraft carrier doing forty knots around on a dime. You have to slow it down first.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
They ALL promise what you like.
@roamer_1
Are you out of your mind???? Bernie isn't promising what I'd like. Kamala isn't promising what I'd like. Neither is Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, Beto, or whichever other Democat Trump will be facing in the general election. They're ALL pretty much promising the exact opposite of what I want.
Which goes back to my point -- the person who is promising to do what I want is more likely to do it than is the person who is promising the exact opposite of what I want. And that's enough of a reason for me to support the former over the latter.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
They ALL promise what you like. Every single damn one of em turns into a Conservative with a halo on the stump. That's exactly why I hold promises from the stump in such low regard... In fact, without regard, unless the candidate has a record that reflects those promises, lending them credence.
That is why I put so much emphasis on record. If they did the right thing when it didn't matter, then they'll do the right thing now.
@roamer_1
Please see http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,370690.msg2023718.html#msg2023718 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,370690.msg2023718.html#msg2023718)
-
That is a false statement.
Lesser evil is not the enemy of the greater evil. Good is the enemy of evil.
Strictly for discussion purposes....lololol.....
https://stream.org/mustnt-not-vote-lesser-two-evils/
-
I understand that you genuinely believe that. And so do I in the final analysis but you cannot turn an aircraft carrier doing forty knots around on a dime. You have to slow it down first.
We have been 'slowing it down' for more than fifty years. When do you expect the turn to begin?
That statement is false. (No offense meant toward you)
-
Are you out of your mind???? Bernie isn't promising what I'd like. Kamala isn't promising what I'd like. Neither is Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, Beto, or any of the rest of them. They're pretty much promising the exact opposite of what I want.
Of course, I meant Republicans.
Which goes back to my point -- the person who is promising to do what I want is more likely to do it than is the person who is promising the exact opposite of what I want. And that's enough of a reason for me to support the former over the latter.
Which brings me back to my point, that they all (Republicans) promise the world from the stump. The record tells the tale.
-
@roamer_1
Please see http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,370690.msg2023718.html#msg2023718 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,370690.msg2023718.html#msg2023718)
Sorry old friend... I sure as heck don't see it... And no one seems to be able to show me.
Rose colored glasses and garden paths.
-
Strictly for discussion purposes....lololol.....
https://stream.org/mustnt-not-vote-lesser-two-evils/
Do you really want to get me goin? LOL!
Because that article is bullcrap, easily torn to shreds.
But then, you probably knew I'd say that.
happy77
-
Which brings me back to my point, that they all (Republicans) promise the world from the stump. The record tells the tale.
:yowsa: That is an absolute FACT! The only politicians I have seen in my 70+ years of life DO in office EXACTLY what they said they would do while campaigning are Ted Cruz and Now Donald J. Trump! Maybe they are the start of something big.
-
2016 was the first time since Ronald Wilson Reagan that I actually voted for someone I genuinely liked for president and it wasn't Donald J. Trump.
Having said that, unless something drastically changes I will cast my vote for Trump in 2020. Not because I necessarily like him as a person but because he has performed admirably as president IMHO.
@Bigun
I submit, however, that it’s the exact other way around, Bigun.
That right. It’s exactly because of the man Donald Trump is that he has performed admirably as president. He’s a tough, self-confident, arrogant, hard working S.O.B. who loves our America and hates what the Left has done, and continues to do to it, on steroids.
But, what do I know? I’m just a sycophant. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Sorry old friend... I sure as heck don't see it... And no one seems to be able to show me.
Rose colored glasses and garden paths.
The fact that YOU don't see it does not mean it has not occurred.
:beer:
-
Of course, I meant Republicans.
And I was talking about the general election, and the Democrats.
But fair enough -- Trump certainly wasn't my first, fifth, or even tenth choice among the GOP primary candidates in 2016. I was really worried about what he was going to do on health care in particular, because he made a few noises that sounded to me like single-payer. Fortunately, he did do his best to kill ObamaCare even if McCain ultimately torpedoed that. And for me, he came through absolute aces on judicial nominations -- my No. 1 issue -- and has done more on immigration than any Republican President I can recall.
But I really made my point with the 2020 general election in mind. I can't actually know that Trump will continue using the Federalist Society for guidance on judicial nominees, and I can't be 100% certain he's still going to be pushing hard for border security. But considering that the Democrats are all promising the exact opposite...I'll cast my vote for horse that might win versus the one that's a guarantee to be running in the wrong direction.
-
Do you really want to get me goin? LOL!
Because that article is bullcrap, easily torn to shreds.
But then, you probably knew I'd say that.
happy77
As usual.... we can agree to disagree on certain issues.
And yeah, I tried! lololol
-
BTW @Maj. Bill Martin :
As a point of order, I have been fencing with you for a couple days now, and because I write like I talk, often I can appear rather terse... When I am bulshalatin' I kinda meander along in a good-hearted way... But when I actually have something to say, I can haul out my 5 dollar words and drill down to a point. I have been told that can be offensive.
I mean no offense toward your person, even in what I consider to be a pleasant opposition.
I respect your mind, even in disagreement, and I appreciate the engagement.
happy77
-
The fact that YOU don't see it does not mean it has not occurred.
:beer:
LOL!
On an issue or two, perhaps I would agree... But on the whole, no. I have been paying attention, as it turns out. :whistle:
:tongue2:
-
So...this dumpster fire is still going.....
-
So...this dumpster fire is still going.....
No hints of retirement. :thud:
-
BTW @Maj. Bill Martin :
As a point of order, I have been fencing with you for a couple days now, and because I write like I talk, often I can appear rather terse... When I am bulshalatin' I kinda meander along in a good-hearted way... But when I actually have something to say, I can haul out my 5 dollar words and drill down to a point. I have been told that can be offensive.
I mean no offense toward your person, even in what I consider to be a pleasant opposition.
I respect your mind, even in disagreement, and I appreciate the engagement.
happy77
Thanks -- absolutely no hard feelings on my end either.
For the most part, most of us here generally agree as to where we want to end up. We just argue like hell about how best to get there.
:beer:
-
And I was talking about the general election, and the Democrats.
But fair enough -- Trump certainly wasn't my first, fifth, or even tenth choice among the GOP primary candidates in 2016. I was really worried about what he was going to do on health care in particular, because he made a few noises that sounded to me like single-payer. Fortunately, he did do his best to kill ObamaCare even if McCain ultimately torpedoed that. And for me, he came through absolute aces on judicial nominations -- my No. 1 issue -- and has done more on immigration than any Republican President I can recall.
But I really made my point with the 2020 general election in mind. I can't actually know that Trump will continue using the Federalist Society for guidance on judicial nominees, and I can't be 100% certain he's still going to be pushing hard for border security. But considering that the Democrats are all promising the exact opposite...I'll cast my vote for horse that might win versus the one that's a guarantee to be running in the wrong direction.
Now see, I prefer not to look at what the right hand is doing when it is out there waiving around. When that happens, I am always looking at the left hand.
Foremost above all things, strip away all the right hand, and you will see that the beast is still being fed, and fed better than ever. For that reason alone, upon the principles of fiscal conservatism, he does not deserve my vote.
Likewise with immigration. For all the pomp and circumstance, he is not far from meeting Obama's actual deportation numbers (last I looked), and one percent of the promised wall is actually in the ground.
Judges are not something I care to add into the equation - and that works in his defense, as going by the numbers on judges, on actual judgements that reflect conservatism, So far the results are bad. And I am rather spooked by Jim DeMint quietly stepping off from such a momentous duty - Heritage approving the judge list matters, and that he stepped down looks like a signal to me.
I am also reticent on Obamacare. I am likely to give him some credit there, but it was designed as an incredible monkey-knot, and I am very uncomfortable with the haphazard deconstruction thereof. In the grand scheme, there are props under the medical and insurance industries that are causing them to be non-competitive, and through the process that has gone on, those props have been strengthened, not knocked out. Root and branch, dammit. And I hold them all to that word.
Again, I will gladly debate these points and others, but with one question to the fore: What has he done that we get to keep?
-
@musiclady
WHY would I ever get tired of fighting an evil that wants to enslave me and everyone else while destroying America by turning it into a police state?
BTW,I hate Islam,too. They are nothing more,or less,than the flip side of your card.
I never know whether to laugh or cry when you write idiotic things like this, pete.
Laugh because it's so utterly ridiculous, or cry because you are a very sad person to be filled with such hatred and anger.
Unfortunately, you are at odds with men such as George Washington, John Adams and James Madison, and that makes you at odds with the founding of this Constitutional Republic.......
-
@musiclady
I honestly don't remember enough about his 2016 campaign to know. But based on what I remember since then...I absolutely would not vote for him in 2020 regardless of who the Democrat nominee was. I think his entire "what I want to tell St. Peter when I'm at the pearly gates" schtick is just another version of the detestable "Jesus was a Socialist" argument.
I'll just say that I'd much, much rather have a President who is a moral reprobate in his personal life, but who preserves individual liberty for his 360 million fellow citizens, than a moral saint who wishes to destroy individual liberty, advance the weirdness of the gender wars, and pushes race-baiting and "white privilege". And I'd happily cast my vote for the former on election to try to make that happen.
I am curious about something. Let's say it ends up being Elizabeth Warren v Donald Trump. Though you won't be voting, would you have a preference as to which of them would win?
The key question in response to this post is, does what Trump is doing in office actually preserve individual liberty? At the very least, that is debatable.
I find it interesting that you use the words 'moral saint' to debunk my position, when I have used no such term, nor do I have any such expectation.
What is fundamental, however, is to have a core and to be able to tell the truth. Those are both missing in our current President.
As for a preference between Warren and Trump, that's a bit tricksy of you. You are right in that I would not vote for either because neither is an honest human being, but I see that you are trying to force me into some kind of philosophical corner of debate after which you can say, either "SEE! You should vote for Trump," or "SEE! You are a liberal,"............ neither of which is a correct response.
I said when Trump was running against Hillary that he would most likely do more things I agree with than she, and that has, in fact, occurred. But if I could go back in time and get into that voting booth again, I would still vote for a candidate who represented the Constitution and Conservative values, and that didn't included either of them........... nor does it presently include Elizabeth Warren.
-
@musiclady
That's probably true for me too - Almost as a matter of mechanics. Foremost: Can I trust this guy? Will he keep his word?
So in that one question, character takes primacy, because if I cannot trust him, I can take no guarantee from his promises, making any promise worthless.
Thereafter, record. If he has a record that reflects conservatism (or at least civil-libertarianism), One can be fairly certain that his motivations, and in that his actions, will continue in that way.
Then general historical stand on issues of the day...
THEN come personality and promises.
You make many good points here, @roamer_1 ......... specifically the primacy of character and trustworthiness.
What I see happening with those who argue against us on this point, is that they are conflating and confusing the issue of character with 'personality.' I could tolerate an icky personality like Trump's if it were in a person of fundamental character. It's not his ugly, childish tweets that drive my reasoning to vote for a third party candidate. It's his continuing inability to speak the truth.
That speaks to fundamental character, and that is what supersedes whether or not I get "what I want" from him.
-
You make many good points here, @roamer_1 ......... specifically the primacy of character and trustworthiness.
What I see happening with those who argue against us on this point, is that they are conflating and confusing the issue of character with 'personality.' I could tolerate an icky personality like Trump's if it were in a person of fundamental character. It's not his ugly, childish tweets that drive my reasoning to vote for a third party candidate. It's his continuing inability to speak the truth.
That speaks to fundamental character, and that is what supersedes whether or not I get "what I want" from him.
That's right @musiclady , right as rain, which brings me back to something you debunked upthread - a moral saint, which I would not be so quick to shy away from...
Talk about evil being made good and good being made evil... That whole argument is on it's head. OF COURSE I would prefer an upright man... Honest and forthright, true to his oath, humble before God, driven by principle... How has that become a slur?
-
OF COURSE I would prefer an upright man... Honest and forthright, true to his oath, humble before God, driven by principle... How has that become a slur?
It hasn't @roamer_1 and who wouldn't prefer that man? All we have to do is find him, talk him into running, and figure out how to finance the effort.
-
2016 was the first time since Ronald Wilson Reagan that I actually voted for someone I genuinely liked for president and it wasn't Donald J. Trump.
Having said that, unless something drastically changes I will cast my vote for Trump in 2020. Not because I necessarily like him as a person but because he has performed admirably as president IMHO.
"Admirably" is debatable, but I'm in agreement with you. Considering the changing landscape in Texas, I'll have to be much more careful with my vote next year.
-
It hasn't @roamer_1 and who wouldn't prefer that man? All we have to do is find him, talk him into running, and figure out how to finance the effort.
I dunno @Bigun , seems like folks nowadays consider a gentleman to be a milksop rather than a man of discipline and spring steel...
-
It hasn't @roamer_1 and who wouldn't prefer that man? All we have to do is find him, talk him into running, and figure out how to finance the effort.
And I was part of that last time, btw... for the first time since 07 on the national ticket.
-
It hasn't @roamer_1 and who wouldn't prefer that man? All we have to do is find him, talk him into running, and figure out how to finance the effort.
Good luck with that. Wouldn't you have to be a little nuts (or more than a little) to want to put yourself and your family and your entire group of friends, administrative staff and associates through what the RL has put Trump & friends through?
-
Good luck with that. Wouldn't you have to be a little nuts (or more than a little) to want to put yourself and your family and your entire group of friends, administrative staff and associates through what the RL has put Trump & friends through?
No worse than what Tump put Cruz through... Pardon me, but my give-a-damn's busted.
-
No worse than what Tump put Cruz through... Pardon me, but my give-a-damn's busted.
And lo and behold.... Cruz got over it and ended up supporting Trump, putting the good of the nation over his own hurt feelings. Too bad everyone can't accomplish the same. :whistle:
-
Good luck with that. Wouldn't you have to be a little nuts (or more than a little) to want to put yourself and your family and your entire group of friends, administrative staff and associates through what the RL has put Trump & friends through?
25 years ago I delved into the political arena as a candidate for an office much lower down on the totem that the presidency. Let's just say the experience was eye-opening and let it go at that. Can't imagine what it must be like to run for president these days.
-
No worse than what Tump put Cruz through... Pardon me, but my give-a-damn's busted.
And by the way.... I'm calling you out on the fact that you just missed the opportunity to say "What? Then are you saying that Trump is a little (or more than a little) nuts?".
AHhahahaha!!!! :tongue2:
-
25 years ago I delved into the political arena as a candidate for an office much lower down on the totem that the presidency. Let's just say the experience was eye-opening and let it go at that. Can't imagine what it must be like to run for president these days.
Even if you're already a millionaire, it would be a nightmare for all involved.... if you're on the right side of the political spectrum. If you're a rat, however, it's golden.
-
And lo and behold.... Cruz got over it and ended up supporting Trump, putting the good of the nation over his own hurt feelings. Too bad everyone can't accomplish the same. :whistle:
Agreed...Trump was relentless on Cruz, yet Cruz still put nation first over pride. It's going to be very interesting to see how Trump treats his DEM opponents during the election process. Will he be just as abusive towards them as he was to Cruz or will he go easier on them like he did Hillary?
-
Good luck with that. Wouldn't you have to be a little nuts (or more than a little) to want to put yourself and your family and your entire group of friends, administrative staff and associates through what the RL has put Trump & friends through?
Boo-hoo-hoo! Po’ widdle Twumpikins! He’s such a saint.
-
25 years ago I delved into the political arena as a candidate for an office much lower down on the totem that the presidency. Let's just say the experience was eye-opening and let it go at that. Can't imagine what it must be like to run for president these days.
Last time I delved into GOP politics, I left disgusted because of all the McCainiacs I had to deal with. My District Chair hated me and pushed us out of everywhere he could. What jerks! I'm delving again, this time in a much redder county that never liked McStain. Mrs. Liberty and I got ourselves appointed Precinct Committeemen already. Tomorrow we're attending the Mohave County Republican Picnic up in the mountains. Going to enjoy some cooler weather, starting today.
I hope I win a door prize. They're giving away guns.
-
Boo-hoo-hoo! Po’ widdle Twumpikins! He’s such a saint.
Sooo.... I take it that you deny what the radical left and their puppets in the lamestream media have put Trump, his family and anyone associated with him through? Really?
-
That's right @musiclady , right as rain, which brings me back to something you debunked upthread - a moral saint, which I would not be so quick to shy away from...
Talk about evil being made good and good being made evil... That whole argument is on it's head. OF COURSE I would prefer an upright man... Honest and forthright, true to his oath, humble before God, driven by principle... How has that become a slur?
You, of course, are right, @roamer_1 ......and I shouldn't have been so quick to say we weren't asking for moral rectitude. It is now used as a slur as if somehow being a "moral saint" is a bad thing, and by defending it, one is asking too much of a candidate.
This is one thing that has surprised me a bit among Conservatives and Christians (who should be the last people on earth making morality a slur), that in order to defend (or excuse) their support for someone who is so debauched, they must make fun of a characteristic that they used to say was important.
I expect that kind of thing from the godless left, but have been taken aback at the accusations and excuses made among Conservatives.
-
Last time I delved into GOP politics, I left disgusted because of all the McCainiacs I had to deal with. My District Chair hated me and pushed us out of everywhere he could. What jerks! I'm delving again, this time in a much redder county that never liked McStain. Mrs. Liberty and I got ourselves appointed Precinct Committeemen already. Tomorrow we're attending the Mohave County Republican Picnic up in the mountains. Going to enjoy some cooler weather, starting today.
I hope I win a door prize. They're giving away guns.
Excellent! That is important work. Good luck with the door prize.
-
Boo-hoo-hoo! Po’ widdle Twumpikins! He’s such a saint.
There's not a lot of sympathy for Donald Trump personally (he's the politician), but quite a bit for the innocent people people being slimed in order to get at Trump.
-
And lo and behold.... Cruz got over it and ended up supporting Trump, putting the good of the nation over his own hurt feelings. Too bad everyone can't accomplish the same. :whistle:
Naw. He had no choice. I do. The character that would do such a thing to an opponent is capable of any betrayal. That is something one should not 'get over'. That should never be rewarded. End of story.
Actually, I would have far more respect for Cruz had he not, and stood firm. That certainly did him damage with me, and since, has shaken his once immaculate Conservative record. That he can be swayed is not a good thing.
-
Sooo.... I take it that you deny what the radical left and their puppets in the lamestream media have put Trump, his family and anyone associated with him through? Really?
It appears he's not denying it, just approving of it.
-
And by the way.... I'm calling you out on the fact that you just missed the opportunity to say "What? Then are you saying that Trump is a little (or more than a little) nuts?".
AHhahahaha!!!! :tongue2:
LOL!
The problem is, I don't think he's nuts. I think he's devious. And not in a good way.
-
LOL!
The problem is, I don't think he's nuts. I think he's devious. And not in a good way.
If he was devious, he wouldn't constantly be in trouble for what he blurts/tweets out. :shrug:
-
You, of course, are right, @roamer_1 ......and I shouldn't have been so quick to say we weren't asking for moral rectitude. It is now used as a slur as if somehow being a "moral saint" is a bad thing, and by defending it, one is asking too much of a candidate.
This is one thing that has surprised me a bit among Conservatives and Christians (who should be the last people on earth making morality a slur), that in order to defend (or excuse) their support for someone who is so debauched, they must make fun of a characteristic that they used to say was important.
I expect that kind of thing from the godless left, but have been taken aback at the accusations and excuses made among Conservatives.
@musiclady
Yep. I have seen that too...for the gnat, they swallow the camel. This cannot turn out well. But no one is listening. The bit is in their teeth.
I used to wonder how such a thing could happen. I need not wonder any longer.
-
If he was devious, he wouldn't constantly be in trouble for what he blurts/tweets out. :shrug:
That is by design.
-
That is by design.
Lol! Somehow... I find that hard to believe.
-
@musiclady
Yep. I have seen that too...for the gnat, they swallow the camel. This cannot turn out well. But no one is listening. The bit is in their teeth.
I used to wonder how such a thing could happen. I need not wonder any longer.
You are absolutely right.
This cannot, and will not turn out well.
-
Lol! Somehow... I find that hard to believe.
No, he always points at someone else. There is always someone to shoulder the blame. It's what he does the most. Then it doesn't matter if he fails miserably, because he has laid the groundwork to make it someone else's fault. And he smells like a rose to his fans, win or lose.
Of course, I smell something else. :laugh:
-
No, he always points at someone else. There is always someone to shoulder the blame. It's what he does the most. Then it doesn't matter if he fails miserably, because he has laid the groundwork to make it someone else's fault. And he smells like a rose to his fans, win or lose.
Of course, I smell something else. :laugh:
Yeah... but.... to posit that his stupid tweets and inappropriate comments are intentional is something that even my vivid imagination just can't conceive of.
-
Last time I delved into GOP politics, I left disgusted because of all the McCainiacs I had to deal with. My District Chair hated me and pushed us out of everywhere he could. What jerks! I'm delving again, this time in a much redder county that never liked McStain. Mrs. Liberty and I got ourselves appointed Precinct Committeemen already. Tomorrow we're attending the Mohave County Republican Picnic up in the mountains. Going to enjoy some cooler weather, starting today.
I hope I win a door prize. They're giving away guns.
Precinct Committeemen - good for you! :patriot:
-
Yeah... but.... to posit that his stupid tweets and inappropriate comments are intentional is something that even my vivid imagination just can't conceive of.
The more idiocy he blurts out, the more his opponents lash out, the more his base rises to defend.
As the World Turns.
-
Sooo.... I take it that you deny what the radical left and their puppets in the lamestream media have put Trump, his family and anyone associated with him through? Really?
:bigsilly:
Sorry, I should have said he is a Holy Saint! He is a miracle worker, a god, worthy of fawning reverence.
Give me a break. Half of what he’s had to put up with was his own damn fault to begin with.
-
:bigsilly:
Sorry, I should have said he is a Holy Saint! He is a miracle worker, a god, worthy of fawning reverence.
Give me a break. Half of what he’s had to put up with was his own damn fault to begin with.
Yes, he's made some really inappropriate comments and tweets, but it was also made known by people within the GOP (Mitch included) and DEMS that they would do everything to see to it that he was a one term president, long before he even took the oath of office.
-
Give me a break. Half of what he’s had to put up with was his own damn fault to begin with.
That's right.
-
The more idiocy he blurts out, the more his opponents lash out, the more his base rises to defend.
As the World Turns.
But...but...but.... that would be nuts! (ooops!)
-
:bigsilly:
Sorry, I should have said he is a Holy Saint! He is a miracle worker, a god, worthy of fawning reverence.
Give me a break. Half of what he’s had to put up with was his own damn fault to begin with.
Ah.... so CL was correct. You DO approve of the harassment and BS the left has put him through.
Good to know.
-
Yes, he's made some really inappropriate comments and tweets, but it was also made known by people within the GOP (Mitch included) and DEMS that they would do everything to see to it that he was a one term president, long before he even took the oath of office.
That's right too, but by design. He points at them and says "They started it!"... and that actually is not true. He started it in his merciless destruction of Jeb.
Sympathy for the devil.
-
Ah.... so CL was correct. You DO approve of the harassment and BS the left has put him through.
Good to know.
No, I don’t. How You do love to put words into other people’s mouths. Mostly, I think, to try and obfuscate the fact that you have precious little to say on your own that’s worth saying.
-
But...but...but.... that would be nuts! (ooops!)
Or devious... Take your pick.
:silly: :beer:
-
The more idiocy he blurts out, the more his opponents lash out, the more his base rises to defend.
As the World Turns.
Yep.
-
Some of you remind me of my kids when they were little. "We can have meatloaf or spaghetti for supper."
"No, I want tuna casserole,"
"But, we don't have tuna."
"Waaaa... I want tuna!"
"But, we don't have any tuna!"
"That's what I want and if we don't have it I'm not going to eat!"
-
Some of you remind me of my kids when they were little. "We can have meatloaf or spaghetti for supper."
"No, I want tuna casserole,"
"But, we don't have tuna."
"Waaaa... I want tuna!"
"But, we don't have any tuna!"
"That's what I want and if we don't have it I'm not going to eat!"
To hell with ya...go to bed hungry!! :seeya:
-
Some of you remind me of my kids when they were little. "We can have meatloaf or spaghetti for supper."
"No, I want tuna casserole,"
"But, we don't have tuna."
"Waaaa... I want tuna!"
"But, we don't have any tuna!"
"That's what I want and if we don't have it I'm not going to eat!"
Meatloaf sounds pretty good.
-
No, I don’t. How You do love to put words into other people’s mouths. Mostly, I think, to try and obfuscate the fact that you have precious little to say on your own that’s worth saying.
Hey, don't blame others for the way you come off due to your own frickin words.
-
That's right too, but by design. He points at them and says "They started it!"... and that actually is not true. He started it in his merciless destruction of Jeb.
Sympathy for the devil.
Oh, come on. Jeb! destroyed himself before he even began. He was a terrible governor for FL and was instrumental in pushing Common Core down our throats. Common Core was a push to indoctrinate our children to Isam which is another issue all on its own. Jeb! was involved in several 'land scams' while governor and lost a lot of support addressing Floridians in Spanish as well as his very liberal stance on ILLEGAL immigration. He ran for POTUS because he felt that's what his mommy wanted.
Jeb! was one of the first of the GOPe candidates to fall, which came as a complete shock to the DEM party as they had placed their bets on a Clinton v. Bush face off. Hillary's victory never happened of course due to Trump's victory. Something that neither the DEMS or the GOPe ever accepted.
-
Hey, don't blame others for the way you come off due to your own frickin words.
I’m not. I’m pointing out that you made claims for me that I have never made. I think it’s quite fair to blame you for trying to paint me with the same brush the MSM keeps painting Trump with.
-
I’m not. I’m pointing out that you made claims for me that I have never made. I think it’s quite fair to blame you for trying to paint me with the same brush the MSM keeps painting Trump with.
I'm just agreeing with CL when he posited that you apparently approve of the harassment against Trump.
Sue me.
-
The more idiocy he blurts out, the more his opponents lash out, the more his base rises to defend.
As the World Turns.
And as he comes under what is seen as partisan attacks from the press and other Republicans, people who are NOT his supporters will start to defend him. Nevers will call those people "Tumpies" even though they despise the man, as I was the other day. One more turn of the world, and a turn of the stomach for good measure. Trump does not get 100% of the blame for that hot mess.
-
I'm just agreeing with CL when he posited that you apparently approve of the harassment against Trump.
Sue me.
So both of you are intellectual frauds who, for lack of an argument of your own, persist in falsely attributing positions to other people so you can then take a swing at them.
So very liberal of the two of you.
-
Oh, come on. Jeb! destroyed himself before he even began. He was a terrible governor for FL and was instrumental in pushing Common Core down our throats. Common Core was a push to indoctrinate our children to Isam which is another issue all on its own. Jeb! was involved in several 'land scams' while governor and lost a lot of support addressing Floridians in Spanish as well as his very liberal stance on ILLEGAL immigration. He ran for POTUS because he felt that's what his mommy wanted.
Jeb! was one of the first of the GOPe candidates to fall, which came as a complete shock to the DEM party as they had placed their bets on a Clinton v. Bush face off. Hillary's victory never happened of course due to Trump's victory. Something that neither the DEMS or the GOPe ever accepted.
I harbor absolutely no affection for any Bush, and I know what you are saying. But nevertheless, Bush was the darling of the moderate wing who was, and still is in power. They too were expecting a Clinton v. Bush contest. And Tump utterly destroyed him. And the Bush family is royalty among the moderates. Of course Tumpy pissed em off... He pisses everyone off. It's what he does.
-
Some of you remind me of my kids when they were little. "We can have meatloaf or spaghetti for supper."
"No, I want tuna casserole,"
"But, we don't have tuna."
"Waaaa... I want tuna!"
"But, we don't have any tuna!"
"That's what I want and if we don't have it I'm not going to eat!"
Where have I heard this exchange before? Oh, yeah, at my kitchen table a hundred times!
Yes, it’s too bad. Children are so self-centered they cannot even think straight.
What were we talking about again?
-
So both of you are intellectual frauds who, for lack of an argument of your own, persist in falsely attributing positions to other people so you can then take a swing at them.
So very liberal of the two of you.
You're hilarious. About as funny as SNL is now.
-
You're hilarious. About as funny as SNL is now.
The truth hurts. Too bad. Put a bandaid on it and stop stooping to such stupid liberal tricks as trying to put false words in other people’s mouths.
-
Some of you remind me of my kids when they were little. "We can have meatloaf or spaghetti for supper."
"No, I want tuna casserole,"
"But, we don't have tuna."
"Waaaa... I want tuna!"
"But, we don't have any tuna!"
"That's what I want and if we don't have it I'm not going to eat!"
I need to know more before I can decide....
What sides come with the meatloaf?
What kind of sauce is on the spaghetti? Are meatballs included?
:pondering:
-
And as he comes under what is seen as partisan attacks from the press and other Republicans, people who are NOT his supporters will start to defend him. Nevers will call those people "Tumpies" even though they despise the man, as I was the other day. One more turn of the world, and a turn of the stomach for good measure. Trump does not get 100% of the blame for that hot mess.
Sure he does. He loves chaos. He makes it happen. Two sides go to war and when it is done, he is free to pick through the rubble for treasures... Which he claims with a victory lap.
I am absolutely satisfied that I stayed far, far away from that tar baby.
-
Interrupting this dumpster fire for a regularly-scheduled Public Service Announcement:
(https://steadfastlutherans.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Judge-Meme-1.jpg)
You are now being returned to the thread's regularly-scheduled Virtue Signaling.
-
I harbor absolutely no affection for any Bush, and I know what you are saying. But nevertheless, Bush was the darling of the moderate wing who was, and still is in power. They too were expecting a Clinton v. Bush contest. And Tump utterly destroyed him. And the Bush family is royalty among the moderates. Of course Tumpy pissed em off... He pisses everyone off. It's what he does.
Who care if Trump pizzed them off? Cruz ruffled the Bush's feathers as well and rightfully so. Quite frankly, Trump ended the Clinton/Bush dynasty as it was. That was a win for the American people.
Bush brought us NAFTA which was detrimental to our country and he refused to listen to Powell when he was told to send troops all the way into Bagdhad. Clinton later had his fingers on Bin Laden but turned tail. All led up to 9-11 and 'W' did take us all the way into Bagdhad and beyond and here we sit...
-
You are now being returned to the thread's regularly-scheduled Virtue Signaling. [/size]
@Right_in_Virginia
You seem to have no idea that your 'judge not' statement is a ridiculous twisting of scripture...
As an aside, that is called 'wickedness'... Wicked, the twisting of wicks...
Carry on. I am certain ignorance will prevail.
-
The truth hurts. Too bad. Put a bandaid on it and stop stooping to such stupid liberal tricks as trying to put false words in other people’s mouths.
You put the words in your own mouth. First you said...
Boo-hoo-hoo! Po’ widdle Twumpikins! He’s such a saint.
Then you said...
Sorry, I should have said he is a Holy Saint! He is a miracle worker, a god, worthy of fawning reverence.
Give me a break. Half of what he’s had to put up with was his own damn fault to begin with.
Now why would anyone have to put false words when your OWN words speak volumes.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
Excellent! :beer:
Reminds me back when we moderated ourselves. :laugh:
-
I need to know more before I can decide....
What sides come with the meatloaf?
What kind of sauce is on the spaghetti? Are meatballs included?
:pondering:
Dammit. You guys are making me hungry.
9999hair out0000
-
Who care if Trump pizzed them off? Cruz ruffled the Bush's feathers as well and rightfully so. Quite frankly, Trump ended the Clinton/Bush dynasty as it was. That was a win for the American people.
Bush brought us NAFTA which was detrimental to our country and he refused to listen to Powell when he was told to send troops all the way into Bagdhad. Clinton later had his fingers on Bin Laden but turned tail. All led up to 9-11 and 'W' did take us all the way into Bagdhad and beyond and here we sit...
So what? Are you under the impression that I am defending them? Not by any means.
Whether just desserts or not is not the point.
The point is that Tump destroyed Bush, pissing off the moderates... Then when the moderates retaliated, Tump stepped into his victim role, pointing at the mean ol moderates who were picking on him.
I can't believe all y'all can't see it. It's his shtick. It's how he operates.
-
So what? Are you under the impression that I am defending them? Not by any means.
Whether just desserts or not is not the point.
The point is that Tump destroyed Bush, pissing off the moderates... Then when the moderates retaliated, Tump stepped into his victim role, pointing at the mean ol moderates who were picking on him.
I can't believe all y'all can't see it. It's his shtick. It's how he operates.
IF you classify the 'moderates' as followers of the GOPe; certainly not a loss. Not in the least.
-
Dammit. You guys are making me hungry.
9999hair out0000
Sorry! I just finished up a late lunch.... (burp)
:laugh:
-
You put the words in your own mouth. First you said...
Then you said...
Now why would anyone have to put false words when your OWN words speak volumes.
And then you put the false words into my mouth that I approve of how the MSM has treated Trump. Which I do not. The mere fact that I don’t worry too much about Trumpy-boy’s feelings doesn’t mean that I approve of the attacks.
That is your essential falsehood, and it ill-becomes you.
-
Before I start:
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/64901147_2459340877636848_6834143431590150144_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_oc=AQmMymfh1WckT-PyWhK0lyJmH7-Du-e7l4Qct2iluIeyw8lAISp4HOc_KBYihJ3jbK8&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=bbf937689a6dd63aee6a0efc228c485a&oe=5DA0F33B)
-
Before I start:
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/64901147_2459340877636848_6834143431590150144_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_oc=AQmMymfh1WckT-PyWhK0lyJmH7-Du-e7l4Qct2iluIeyw8lAISp4HOc_KBYihJ3jbK8&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=bbf937689a6dd63aee6a0efc228c485a&oe=5DA0F33B)
Clockwise, of course.
-
@roamer_1
Taking into account the Democratic agenda ...the out-in-the-open Leftist media, don't freaking tell me
that not voting or withholding your vote for Donald Trump as some sort of principled protest or conscience vote
gives you some sort of Papal Dispensation, etc..
You'd be viewed as an 'enemy', not as a principled Conservative.
You okay with that?
Don't know about you, but I'd rather follow Donald Trump into war...rather than say, Tim Tebow.
-
Almost to page 17 of 'GOP fears retirement wave will lead to tsunami".... :2popcorn: 999beer
-
IF you classify the 'moderates' as followers of the GOPe; certainly not a loss. Not in the least.
There is no GOPe. That is silly street slang.
In the Republican party, there are three main factions.
The conservative Goldwater/Reagan wing.
The globalist/corporatist moderate wing (Ford, Dole, Bush, McCain't)
and the back east, old money, corporatist liberal wing (Romney, Tump)
I think you can draw a picture from that...
-
And then you put the false words into my mouth that I approve of how the MSM has treated Trump. Which I do not. The mere fact that I don’t worry too much about Trumpy-boy’s feelings doesn’t mean that I approve of the attacks.
That is your essential falsehood, and it ill-becomes you.
Well... when you say that someone deserves the shit they're getting..... it sure as hell sounds like you approve of the shit they're getting. Again.... catch a much-needed clue re: how your own words sound.
-
Before I start:
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/64901147_2459340877636848_6834143431590150144_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_oc=AQmMymfh1WckT-PyWhK0lyJmH7-Du-e7l4Qct2iluIeyw8lAISp4HOc_KBYihJ3jbK8&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=bbf937689a6dd63aee6a0efc228c485a&oe=5DA0F33B)
Depends @corbe ...
Are you north of the equator or south of it?
-
Well... when you say that someone deserves the shit they're getting..... it sure as hell sounds like you approve of the shit they're getting. Again.... catch a much-needed clue re: how your own words sound.
Again, the fault lies with you. You seem to only read what you want to read. And then you simply assume, and I trust we all know what happens when one assumes.
Try taking things more at face value, as they are, and less the way you subjectively think they ought to be.
-
Almost to page 17 of 'GOP fears retirement wave will lead to tsunami".... :2popcorn: 999beer
:martini:
-
I need to know more before I can decide....
What sides come with the meatloaf?
What kind of sauce is on the spaghetti? Are meatballs included?
:pondering:
Mashed potatoes and broccoli.
Homemade bread, tomatoes are the veggies.
-
Again, the fault lies with you. You seem to only read what you want to read. And then you simply assume, and I trust we all know what happens when one assumes.
Try taking things more at face value, as they are, and less the way you subjectively think they ought to be.
Whatev. I've reached the point of boredom. You can have the last crack.
(http://i.myniceprofile.com/1560/156010.gif)
-
Mashed potatoes and broccoli.
Homemade bread, tomatoes are the veggies.
With or without mushroom gravy?
-
Mashed potatoes and broccoli.
Homemade bread, tomatoes are the veggies.
If they are garlic mashed potatoes (and you promise not to overcook the broccoli) then I am in for that!
yogi555
-
So both of you are intellectual frauds who, for lack of an argument of your own, persist in falsely attributing positions to other people so you can then take a swing at them.
So very liberal of the two of you.
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/17/4e/f0/174ef0fc7c5454ceb83d210bae3efcd5.jpg)
-
@roamer_1
Taking into account the Democratic agenda ...the out-in-the-open Leftist media, don't freaking tell me
that not voting or withholding your vote for Donald Trump as some sort of principled protest or conscience vote
gives you some sort of Papal Dispensation, etc..
You'd be viewed as an 'enemy', not as a principled Conservative.
You okay with that?
Don't know about you, but I'd rather follow Donald Trump into war...rather than say, Tim Tebow.
@DCPatriot
JUST for the sake of fiscal conservatism, which even the blind don't need braille to see... NO, I will not support Tump. That is not to say there aren't manifold reasons beyond that... But that alone is enough to make any conservative deny him their vote.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the other side. I don't give a rusty crap what they do. It has everything to do with the merits of your cause. In fact, where we are right now, I don't give a crap about either side, because both 'sides' are on the side of big government and socialism.
We have no agreement anymore. The Reagan Coalition is why I was defending Republicans. Why there was union. The Republicans in large part are no longer interested in Reagan, which is why I left the Republican party, and thus, why I am under no obligation whatsoever to align with Y'all.
And I don't give a flyin doughnut about you're threats to brand me a traitor - That quit being effective long, long ago. I have taken that accusation and many more so very many times that I am wholly immune.
'The Democrats are worse' is a horseshit platform.
Speak to me of defending Conservatism - the only thing that will right this nation - And I will come arunnin. Tell me the Conservative merits of your position and I will listen. But you can't because it ain't there. That's why y'all are always pointing at the eeeeevil Democrats instead of raising a Conservative banner.
I have no dog in this hunt. y'all ain't supporting Conservatism, and neither are the 'crats. So all I can do is give you the finger of past-be-damned, and walk off.
Tell me how it's different.
-
Whatev. I've reached the point of boredom. You can have the last crack.
(http://i.myniceprofile.com/1560/156010.gif)
Cute cat!
-
Mashed potatoes and broccoli.
Homemade bread, tomatoes are the veggies.
I'm in...but, what kind of homemade bread??
-
@DCPatriot
JUST for the sake of fiscal conservatism, which even the blind don't need braille to see... NO, I will not support Tump. That is not to say there aren't manifold reasons beyond that... But that alone is enough to make any conservative deny him their vote.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the other side. I don't give a rusty crap what they do. It has everything to do with the merits of your cause. In fact, where we are right now, I don't give a crap about either side, because both 'sides' are on the side of big government and socialism.
We have no agreement anymore. The Reagan Coalition is why I was defending Republicans. Why there was union. The Republicans in large part are no longer interested in Reagan, which is why I left the Republican party, and thus, why I am under no obligation whatsoever to align with Y'all.
And I don't give a flyin doughnut about you're threats to brand me a traitor - That quit being effective long, long ago. I have taken that accusation and many more so very many times that I am wholly immune.
'The Democrats are worse' is a horseshit platform.
Speak to me of defending Conservatism - the only thing that will right this nation - And I will come arunnin. Tell me the Conservative merits of your position and I will listen. But you can't because it ain't there. That's why y'all are always pointing at the eeeeevil Democrats instead of raising a Conservative banner.
I have no dog in this hunt. y'all ain't supporting Conservatism, and neither are the 'crats. So all I can do is give you the finger of past-be-damned, and walk off.
Tell me how it's different.
I agree, the only thing that will right this nation is Conservatism; adhering to the Constitution and to the very principles upon which this country was founded. Well @roamer_1 there isn't a conservative running in 2020. That's reality and as I have stated several times before you need to vote your conscience and if that means not voting then so be it.
I am one that does care what the radical left on the other side does; destroying our Republic, and since there is no conservative running for the oval office, the only choice I feel I have is to stop those on the radical left from being seated.
-
I agree, the only thing that will right this nation is Conservatism; adhering to the Constitution and to the very principles upon which this country was founded. Well @roamer_1 there isn't a conservative running in 2020. That's reality and as I have stated several times before you need to vote your conscience and if that means not voting then so be it.
There will be a Conservative running @libertybele ... There always is. Wit the exception of when I was too gimped up to vote, I have cast my vote for a Conservative president every time.
I am one that does care what the radical left on the other side does; destroying our Republic, and since there is no conservative running for the oval office, the only choice I feel I have is to stop those on the radical left from being seated.
Sooner or later you will come to the realization that you are supporting the left anyway... In allowing the Republicans to veer further and further left, I made the decision not to be responsible for that anymore. It no longer matters which side you're on. It's the same dang thing.
-
There will be a Conservative running @libertybele ... There always is. Wit the exception of when I was too gimped up to vote, I have cast my vote for a Conservative president every time.
Sooner or later you will come to the realization that you are supporting the left anyway... In allowing the Republicans to veer further and further left, I made the decision not to be responsible for that anymore. It no longer matters which side you're on. It's the same dang thing.
There is much truth in your point which I realized a long time ago. A conservative always runs?? In the Hillary/Trump run off, neither was a conservative, so ... not quite sure I can agree with your statement. Again, every one needs to vote their conscience.
Peace.
-
There is much truth in your point which I realized a long time ago. A conservative always runs?? In the Hillary/Trump run off, neither was a conservative, so ... not quite sure I can agree with your statement. Again, every one needs to vote their conscience.
Peace.
Castle was there. And if my option is to abstain or lend my voice to a third party, I will certainly move my stumps and go vote for the Conservative.
-
Castle was there. And if my option is to abstain or lend my voice to a third party, I will certainly move my stumps and go vote for the Conservative.
I would have gladly voted for the Constitution Party; however, they have never qualified and made it to be on the ballot in all 50 states, including the election of 2016. So if you live in a state where he wasn't on the ballot or an allowable write-in, that wasn't an option. In reality, if a candidate doesn't make it on the ballot in all 50 states, there is absolutely no way that they will win.
Just sayin'. So, again, I don't know where you are getting the notion that in every election there is a viable conservative.
Here is the ballot access map of the Constitution Party in 2018 - pretty grim.
https://www.constitutionparty.com/elections/ballot-access/ (https://www.constitutionparty.com/elections/ballot-access/)
Also, as of right now, the Constituion party has ZERO candidates running in 2020 for president.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2019/03/where-are-the-constitution-party-2020-potus-candidates/ (https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2019/03/where-are-the-constitution-party-2020-potus-candidates/)
-
@Right_in_Virginia
Excellent! :beer:
Reminds me back when we moderated ourselves. :laugh:
Ah... the good old days. happy77
@DCPatriot
-
@Right_in_Virginia
You seem to have no idea that your 'judge not' statement is a ridiculous twisting of scripture...
As an aside, that is called 'wickedness'... Wicked, the twisting of wicks...
Carry on. I am certain ignorance will prevail.
I understand it just fine @roamer_1 And nothing proves my point better than the last sentence of your post.
Thank you.
-
With or without mushroom gravy?
With of course.
-
If they are garlic mashed potatoes (and you promise not to overcook the broccoli) then I am in for that!
yogi555
Garlic is good. And, the broccoli is always just right - never mushy.
Oh, the spaghetti sauce is with meat but not meatballs. And, made from scratch. The spaghetti noodles are store bought though. And also al dente.
-
I'm in...but, what kind of homemade bread??
Either Italian or whole wheat, depending on what kind of mood I am in.
-
I would have gladly voted for the Constitution Party; however, they have never qualified and made it to be on the ballot in all 50 states, including the election of 2016. So if you live in a state where he wasn't on the ballot or an allowable write-in, that wasn't an option. In reality, if a candidate doesn't make it on the ballot in all 50 states, there is absolutely no way that they will win.
Just sayin'.
Here is the ballot access map of the Constitution Party in 2018 - pretty grim.
https://www.constitutionparty.com/elections/ballot-access/ (https://www.constitutionparty.com/elections/ballot-access/)
If they are not there, and no other Conservative rises, then I will simply abstain. I will no longer lend credence to Republicans other than from the Goldwater/Reagan wing.
And I don't see that map as so bad.. If they are on the ballot in the South, the Rustbelt, the Midwest, the Desert Southwest, and the Rockies, That's where their votes will be anyway.
-
I keep telling you people: there is no tuna casserole no matter how badly you want it!
-
I keep telling you people: there is no tuna casserole no matter how badly you want it!
Makes no difference to me. I'm independent. I'll just order a pizza. :shrug:
-
Makes no difference to me. I'm independent. I'll just order a pizza. :shrug:
No, you'll go to bed hungry.
-
Peace.
And by the way my friend - I have not forgotten that you and I have stood together for a very long time.
That has not changed.
:beer:
-
No, you'll go to bed hungry.
You must be under the impression that I don't know how to crawl out my window and jump off the porch roof. Cell phone, walk down the lane to the gate, pizza guy shows up... and nobody says a thing.
:seeya:
-
I keep telling you people: there is no tuna casserole no matter how badly you want it!
Thank God! I detest tuna casserole. My mother used to make it with some kind of biscuit and caraway seeds. I always opted for p&j or french toast.
-
Thank God! I detest tuna casserole. My mother used to make it with some kind of biscuit and caraway seeds. I always opted for p&j or french toast.
Ugh. No, I make it with a white sauce and italian bread crumbs and parmesan cheese browned on top. My kids still want it when they visit. Good stuff!
-
And by the way my friend - I have not forgotten that you and I have stood together for a very long time.
That has not changed.
:beer:
:beer:
-
Ugh. No, I make it with a white sauce and italian bread crumbs and parmesan cheese browned on top. My kids still want it when they visit. Good stuff!
Would you be so kind as to post your recipe?? Always looking for a good recipe.
-
'Really damaging': Retirement wave could sink GOP effort to win back House in 2020
by Susan Ferrechio
| August 02, 2019 05:11 PM
Is a 2020 House Republican majority bid about to get washed out?
House Republicans watched their chances shrink on Thursday night when Rep. Will Hurd became the ninth GOP lawmaker to announce he won’t run for a third term next November.
And it could get much worse.
“We could be headed for the neighborhood of 30 retirements, which would be historically on the high side,†Dave Wasserman, House race editor for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, told the Washington Examiner. “This could just be the beginning.â€
Republicans need to flip 18 seats held by Democrats to regain the majority next year.
more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/really-damaging-retirement-wave-could-sink-gop-effort-to-win-back-house-in-2020 (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/really-damaging-retirement-wave-could-sink-gop-effort-to-win-back-house-in-2020)
-
I keep telling you people: there is no tuna casserole no matter how badly you want it!
I really don't like hot tuna.
But meatloaf, mashed potatoes and fresh bread of any kind....ummmm! I hope you don't mind if I skip the broccoli.
(I've been waiting on this thread to go to pie...but meatloaf works, too. lol)
-
Would you be so kind as to post your recipe?? Always looking for a good recipe.
Certainly, good food should be shared.
Start the water for the noodles.
Make a white sauce:
1/2 stick of butter melted. Remove from heat and stir in 3 generous tablespoons of flour, salt and pepper, and if you want to add herbs now is the time. Put back on the heat and stir in one cup of milk. Stir until thickened and remove from the heat. (maybe 5 minutes)
Add sauteed mushrooms and onions and 2 cans of tuna to the still hot sauce. When the noodles are cooked and drained, mix the tuna/white sauce into the noodles until well mixed. Put in casserole pan, top with Italian bread crumbs and Parmesan cheese. Bake at 350 until browned on top and bubbly.
Some people like peas mixed in, but my kids are purists and don't care for that.
-
With of course.
Yay! I’m in!
-
Certainly, good food should be shared.
Start the water for the noodles.
Make a white sauce:
1/2 stick of butter melted. Remove from heat and stir in 3 generous tablespoons of flour, salt and pepper, and if you want to add herbs now is the time. Put back on the heat and stir in one cup of milk. Stir until thickened and remove from the heat. (maybe 5 minutes)
Add sauteed mushrooms and onions and 2 cans of tuna to the still hot sauce. When the noodles are cooked and drained, mix the tuna/white sauce into the noodles until well mixed. Put in casserole pan, top with Italian bread crumbs and Parmesan cheese. Bake at 350 until browned on top and bubbly.
Some people like peas mixed in, but my kids are purists and don't care for that.
Thank you very much @Sanguine I appreciate it.
-
Thank you very much @Sanguine I appreciate it.
:beer:
-
I really don't like hot tuna.
Well they are looking long of tooth.
(http://hottuna.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/st.george_hot_tuna.jpg)
-
DCPatriot's Internationally famous (I have relatives in both Canada and Mexico) meatloaf
Makes 2 size loaves.
* 2.5 lbs of 80/20 ground chuck
* one-half lb ground pork
* one-half lb ground veal
* one large yellow onion finely chopped.
* 2.25 cups unseasoned breadcrumbs
* 5 medium eggs
* 2 teas salt
* 1 teas coarse pepper
* 2/3 cup of blend of Romano and Parmigiano cheese
* 8-10 finely chopped large cloves garlic
* 3/4 cup of freshly chopped parsley tops
* 2/3 cup warm water (applied in stages as mixture is mixed)
Don't over-knead but mix thoroughly. @roamer_1 wash your hands!! :laugh:
Lightly brown on all sides in large frying pan in 1/3 inch peanut oil medium heat.
sauce/gravy for this:
* 2 cups of ketchup
* 4 cups of water
* 1/4 cup of French's yellow mustard (or your choice of yellow with a kick)
* 1/2 cup of brown sugar
* 1 medium onion coarsely chopped
* 1/2 cup of chopped fresh parsley tops
* 4 tblespoons of butter.
********************************************************
Pour sauce mixture over two loaves and put in 350 degree oven for 90 minutes.... if you can stand to wait that long. happy77
-
That looks really good @DCPatriot .
-
It hasn't @roamer_1 and who wouldn't prefer that man? All we have to do is find him, talk him into running, and figure out how to finance the effort.
@Bigun @roamer_1
You guys want a president that is humble before/subordinate to an imaginary creature?
Seriously? And you complain about the followers of Mohammed?
-
That looks really good @DCPatriot .
It's insane. I serve/enjoy it with Bob Evans original microwave mashed potatoes. But heated in a pan on a stove-top.
Every time I make it, give one away to family/friends.
Each loaf should feed six. :beer:
-
@Bigun @roamer_1
You guys want a president that is humble before/subordinate to an imaginary creature?
Seriously? And you complain about the followers of Mohammed?
You belive whatever you like @sneakypete and I will do the same.
-
DCPatriot's Internationally famous (I have relatives in both Canada and Mexico) meatloaf
Makes 2 size loaves.
* 2.5 lbs of 80/20 ground chuck
* one-half lb ground pork
* one-half lb ground veal
* one large yellow onion finely chopped.
* 2.25 cups unseasoned breadcrumbs
* 5 medium eggs
* 2 teas salt
* 1 teas coarse pepper
* 2/3 cup of blend of Romano and Parmigiano cheese
* 8-10 finely chopped large cloves garlic
* 3/4 cup of freshly chopped parsley tops
* 2/3 cup warm water (applied in stages as mixture is mixed)
Don't over-knead but mix thoroughly. @roamer_1 wash your hands!! :laugh:
Lightly brown on all sides in large frying pan in 1/3 inch peanut oil medium heat.
sauce/gravy for this:
* 2 cups of ketchup
* 4 qts of water
* 1/4 cup of French's yellow mustard
* 1/2 cup of brown sugar
* 1 medium onion coarsely chopped
* 1/2 cup of chopped fresh parsley tops
* 4 tblespoons of butter.
********************************************************
Pour sauce mixture over two loaves and put in 350 degree oven for 90 minutes.... if you can stand to wait that long. happy77
Yum! Thanks for sharing.
-
You belive whatever you like @sneakypete and I will do the same.
@Bigun
I have never suggested otherwise,and will fight for your right to worship as you please,as long as you don't follow Mohammed. Islam is not a religion,and I don't give a damn who claims it is,they are wrong.
-
@Bigun
I have never suggested otherwise,and will fight for your right to worship as you please,as long as you don't follow Mohammed. Islam is not a religion,and I don't give a damn who claims it is,they are wrong.
We are in complete agreement then.
-
Yum! Thanks for sharing.
:beer:
-
@roamer_1 wash your hands!! :laugh:
@DCPatriot
Hey. All that is is washin off flavor... :whistle:
-
That's not the "slogan". There clearly will be a lot of people voting for a guy because they really like him. My point is that the mere fact that you're casting a vote for a guy does not mean you are a fan of everything about him, and may simply be trying to keep an opponent you believe to be worse out of power.
May? I'd have to say that close to 99% of the ballots I have cast have been precisely to keep a worse evil from getting into office. Now where does that leave this country, imho? Swirling around the bowl, that's where.
The slow train to evil has the same destination as the express.
Or -- perhaps more likely -- there are things about the candidate you like, some things you don't, but you think the good outweighs the bad in comparison to the opponent. Anyone who considers a vote for a candidate equivalent to agreeing with that candidate on every single issue, and an endorsement of every person foible and idiosyncracy, is being willfully obtuse. Only the most pendantic twit would argue that everyone who voted for George W. Bush thought him getting a DUI was fantastic, or that those who voted for Trump saw nothing at all wrong with Trump's "grab them by the bleep" comment.
But while that total approval is not what the voter may intend, it is the net effect. In or out, on or off, there is no middle ground in that. So voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil.
I'm with @roamer_1 on that. Why?? Just to keep from going to hell in a handbasket a little longer?
Well, sorry, but not only is that downright selfish, it's just another version of kicking the can down the road.
It's dooming our progeny to debt, economic collapse, tyranny, and worse so we can live it up (supposedly), when the politicians are the ones who are living it up, on our great grand children's dime.
Our Federal Government was never intended to do most of what it does. It was never intended to have the powers it exerts, not just on individuals, but on the several states as well.
Just sit down with a clear head and put aside the contortions of verbiage that attorneys use to twist a language to support concepts clearly out of bounds, and compare the cabinet posts to the Constitutionally authorized powers and duties of the Federal Government. That Republic didn't survive the first 50 years unscathed, and the last one hundred are a serious departure from the original concept.
-
@musiclady
There is NOTHING politically "conservative" about being a fire-breathing bible-thumper. In FACT,it means just the opposite because actual conservatives fight against police states of every type.
It wasn't just fire breathing bible thumpers who got the boot.
How many of your vehicles will tolerate E15 well? None of mine were built for that crap? But the guy who 'won' promised, in Iowa, that he'd push the EPA mandate and enforce it to the fullest extent of the law. That's where I moved him down the list, considerably. Another fellow said he'd do away with the blend mandate and let the market decide. Him, I would have voted for, if we'd had a primary in ND. We didn't.
Now, I am not about to wholeheartedly support a Party that even deprived me of the opportunity to have my say in the primaries. No effing way.
As you said, I'm against totalitarians of ANY stripe.
-
It wasn't just fire breathing bible thumpers who got the boot.
How many of your vehicles will tolerate E15 well? None of mine were built for that crap? But the guy who 'won' promised, in Iowa, that he'd push the EPA mandate and enforce it to the fullest extent of the law. That's where I moved him down the list, considerably. Another fellow said he'd do away with the blend mandate and let the market decide. Him, I would have voted for, if we'd had a primary in ND. We didn't.
Now, I am not about to wholeheartedly support a Party that even deprived me of the opportunity to have my say in the primaries. No effing way.
As you said, I'm against totalitarians of ANY stripe.
Amen, Brother Joe!
-
Clockwise, of course.
Depends on whether you are in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere. Coriolis effect, and all that.
-
Now, I am not about to wholeheartedly support a Party that even deprived me of the opportunity to have my say in the primaries. No effing way.
No one is asking for your wholehearted support; just your rational support of the defense we have -- right now -- against the Socialist-Democrats.
Neither is anyone asking you to wholeheartedly support the General leading our offensive attack, simply asking you to accept we're at war with the General we have. Personally, I feel damn good with Donald Trump leading the fight, but you don't have to. All you have to do is be prepared to accept the consequences of his--and our--defeat.
I believe the battle cry "Join of Die" from our nation's birth applies as much today as it did then.
The choice is yours.
-
No one is asking for your wholehearted support; just your rational support of the defense we have -- right now -- against the Socialist-Democrats.
WHY? So we can have socialist Republicans instead?
SAME DANG THING.
Neither is anyone asking you to wholeheartedly support the General leading our offensive attack, simply asking you to accept we're at war with the General we have. Personally, I feel damn good with Donald Trump leading the fight, but you don't have to. All you have to do is be prepared to accept the consequences of his--and our--defeat.
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
I believe the battle cry "Join of Die" from our nation's birth applies as much today as it did then.
The choice is yours.
LOL! Nonsense... at best y'all represent a few degrees of separation - soon subsumed into the corporate socialist matrix should you continue and 'win'.
-
It wasn't just fire breathing bible thumpers who got the boot.
How many of your vehicles will tolerate E15 well? None of mine were built for that crap? But the guy who 'won' promised, in Iowa, that he'd push the EPA mandate and enforce it to the fullest extent of the law. That's where I moved him down the list, considerably. Another fellow said he'd do away with the blend mandate and let the market decide. Him, I would have voted for, if we'd had a primary in ND. We didn't.
Now, I am not about to wholeheartedly support a Party that even deprived me of the opportunity to have my say in the primaries. No effing way.
As you said, I'm against totalitarians of ANY stripe.
That's right.
-
It's dooming our progeny to debt, economic collapse, tyranny, and worse so we can live it up (supposedly), when the politicians are the ones who are living it up, on our great grand children's dime.
That's right. The problem is not the socialist dems. The problem is that Republicans are satisfied to be at best, where democrats were in the 80s. And that is the so-called right. The problem is Republicans having moved so far left that the difference in the longer term is indistinguishable.
Great post.
-
Amen, Brother Joe!
MEGADITTOS
-
@Bigun @roamer_1
You guys want a president that is humble before/subordinate to an imaginary creature?
Of course not. I said humble before God.
-
No one is asking for your wholehearted support; just your rational support of the defense we have -- right now -- against the Socialist-Democrats.
Neither is anyone asking you to wholeheartedly support the General leading our offensive attack, simply asking you to accept we're at war with the General we have. Personally, I feel damn good with Donald Trump leading the fight, but you don't have to. All you have to do is be prepared to accept the consequences of his--and our--defeat.
I believe the battle cry "Join of Die" from our nation's birth applies as much today as it did then.
The choice is yours.
Right. Check the flints and keep your powder dry and all that.
It's just that the guy leading has attacked my rights, and my income and claimed it as a "win".
So, who is the enemy again? Every G-D one of them as I see it.
You have no friends in Government. They all want to own you, to take from you the fruits of your labors, and even tell you in minute detail how you are to perform those labors, IF you can at all.
I am under no illusions. It boils down to a question of who is trying to take the least from me at the moment, but that doesn't make them my pals, just a lesser enemy.
And that, m'dear, is the crux of the matter.
-
But while that total approval is not what the voter may intend, it is the net effect. In or out, on or off, there is no middle ground in that. So voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil.
I'd agree that regardless of the intent with which someone casts a vote, the consequences of the vote are the same. I think that matters in terms of tangible policy results, but it does exclude the implied approval of the morality of the person elected.
I'm with @roamer_1 on that. Why?? Just to keep from going to hell in a handbasket a little longer?
Well, sorry, but not only is that downright selfish, it's just another version of kicking the can down the road.
1) Kicking the can down the road is the wrong choice when there is a better option. But if there isn't a better option -- if the only two realistic choices presented are the bomb blowing up in 15 seconds, or delaying the explosion for two hours and hope someone shows up who knows how to defuse it in the meantime -- then kicking the can down the road is the most logical choice. And it certainly isn't selfish. Seems to me it's far more selfish for the doom and gloomers wanting to satisfy their own sense of fatalism to insist on the bomb going off immediately, rather than delaying it in the hopes a better solution will emerge in the meantime. Fine -- go ahead and commit suicide if you want. But don't insist the rest of us who'd like to hang around a bit longer join you.
2) In most cases, I don't believe it really is the "lesser of two evils." I think it's generally a choice between "evil", and "someone who (at least "net") won't make things more evil, and may even make things somewhat better". Net, I think Trump has been more positive than negative. Others may disagree with that, so to them, it really may be the lesser of two evils. Not for me, though.
Now, that's also why I wouldn't vote for someone like Kasich, because I do think he'd actually make things worse overall, and might even end up getting even more "bad" accomplished than if we'd elected a Democrat.
-
WHY? So we can have socialist Republicans instead?
SAME DANG THING.
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
@roamer_1
Yeah,MUCH better to give up without a fight,and the blame what happens on the people who actually voted in an effort to halt the loss of our freedoms,right?
Seems to me what you "Principled voters" (roflmao!) want most of all is to duck responsibility so you can claim it wasn't your fault when our system collapses. You are "conscientious objectors" in the war to retain and regain our freedoms. Now,being a BIG fan of personal freedoms,I don't personally give a damn if you vote or not. That does NOT mean I will sit by quietly and not point out your hypocrisy as our system is destroyed and you sit back and smugly claim "It wasn't MY fault. I had several hissy-fits,but it didn't work!"
The person that stands by and does nothing while seeing a tragedy develop and happen HAS to share guilt with the people that purposely set the tragedy in motion.
-
Of course not. I said humble before God.
@roamer_1
Enough with the Christian bashing.
-
@roamer_1
Yeah,MUCH better to give up without a fight,and the blame what happens on the people who actually voted in an effort to halt the loss of our freedoms,right?
Seems to me what you "Principled voters" (roflmao!) want most of all is to duck responsibility so you can claim it wasn't your fault when our system collapses. You are "conscientious objectors" in the war to retain and regain our freedoms. Now,being a BIG fan of personal freedoms,I don't personally give a damn if you vote or not. That does NOT mean I will sit by quietly and not point out your hypocrisy as our system is destroyed and you sit back and smugly claim "It wasn't MY fault. I had several hissy-fits,but it didn't work!"
The person that stands by and does nothing while seeing a tragedy develop and happen HAS to share guilt with the people that purposely set the tragedy in motion.
Well said @sneakypete
If one claims to care about the future of his country, claims to understand the gravity of politics and it’s impact on culture and society, his children’s future, and claims to possess some superior standard by which he pick his candidates for office; and further, he acknowledges that politics is a battle of competing, polar opposite, visions for America’s future ...and then he bows out of the struggle; not my monkey, not my circus?:
[self-censored summation. Hint: it has to do with credibility and loss of respect for someone like that]
-
@roamer_1
Yeah,MUCH better to give up without a fight, and the blame what happens on the people who actually voted in an effort to halt the loss of our freedoms,right?
Seems to me what you "Principled voters" (roflmao!) want most of all is to duck responsibility so you can claim it wasn't your fault when our system collapses. You are "conscientious objectors" in the war to retain and regain our freedoms. Now,being a BIG fan of personal freedoms,I don't personally give a damn if you vote or not. That does NOT mean I will sit by quietly and not point out your hypocrisy as our system is destroyed and you sit back and smugly claim "It wasn't MY fault. I had several hissy-fits, but it didn't work!"
The person that stands by and does nothing while seeing a tragedy develop and happen HAS to share guilt with the people that purposely set the tragedy in motion.
Amen, brother!
:thumbsup: @sneakypete
-
It's just that the guy leading has attacked my rights, and my income and claimed it as a "win".
So, who is the enemy again? Every G-D one of them as I see it.
Again @Smokin Joe You're angry and disappointed. I can't argue with this, won't even try. But to say there are no differences between a President Trump and a President Any Demonrat Running is disngenuous, IMO.
Again, choosing to sit this election out because you're blinded by anger is your right. Holding you part of the reason for our defeat and the consequences that will be unleashed is mine.
-
Yeah,MUCH better to give up without a fight,and the blame what happens on the people who actually voted in an effort to halt the loss of our freedoms,right?
@sneakypete
Not at all... If it is my fate to spill my blood for liberty, I will do it without regret. But I will pick the hill to die on. And it won't be helping crony corporatists in the Republican party *SPIT*
And y'all didn't vote in an effort to halt the loss of freedom, or you would have picked a principled Conservative. You would literally be standing upon the foundation. Y'all voted to throw poo at the Democrats and the MSM.
Seems to me what you "Principled voters" (roflmao!) want most of all is to duck responsibility so you can claim it wasn't your fault when our system collapses.
No, without principled Conservatism, there is no stopping our system from collapsing. I mean it more than you do. I will not be swayed by pretty baubles. I will not swoon at celebrity. I will preach on, right till the bitter end.
You will fix NOTHING without throttling the last gasping fiscal air out of this federal behemoth.
You will fix nothing without a mentality toward federalism and the sovereignty of the various states, putting the federal beast back in its proper cage.
You will fix nothing without restoring integrity to our institutions, and piety among the people.
That means you NEED the timeless and immovable principles of fiscal conservatism.
That means you NEED the timeless and immovable principles of civil libertarianism.
That means you NEED the timeless and immovable principles of social conservatism.
You will win nothing without the principles of Conservatism.
And as of right now, y'all have none of them - Not a one.
You are "conscientious objectors" in the war to retain and regain our freedoms.
The hell I am.
Now,being a BIG fan of personal freedoms,I don't personally give a damn if you vote or not.
Likewise.
That does NOT mean I will sit by quietly and not point out your hypocrisy as our system is destroyed and you sit back and smugly claim "It wasn't MY fault. I had several hissy-fits,but it didn't work!"
How very nearsighted of you. The hypocrisy is in y'all = Saying you're conservatives but promoting big federal government and NYC values. Claiming conservatism and spitting upon the very principles that are its veritable definition.
I am standing on the very ground I have always stood upon. I have not moved one bitter inch. And I never, ever will.
Y'all object that I will not compromise and join you in your revelry. I tell you truly, there has been far, far too much compromise already. It's grown-up time.
The person that stands by and does nothing while seeing a tragedy develop and happen HAS to share guilt with the people that purposely set the tragedy in motion.
Bullcrap. If there is a child about to be hit by a bus, and your plan is to blow bubbles at it, you can bet I will be doing something else. This is no different.
-
Well said @sneakypete
If one claims to care about the future of his country, claims to understand the gravity of politics and it’s impact on culture and society, his children’s future, and claims to possess some superior standard by which he pick his candidates for office; and further, he acknowledges that politics is a battle of competing, polar opposite, visions for America’s future ...and then he bows out of the struggle; not my monkey, not my circus?:
[self-censored summation. Hint: it has to do with credibility and loss of respect for someone like that]
@aligncare
I have not bowed out of the struggle because I refuse to support your misbegotten effort.
You have me laughing with your inane efforts to make me bow and accept the chains you are forging.
I will simply direct my efforts toward something effective instead.
-
@sneakypete
And y'all didn't vote in an effort to halt the loss of freedom, or you would have picked a principled Conservative.
Horse Hillary! NAME the "principled conservative by" YOUR standards that was running.
No, without principled Conservatism, there is no stopping our system from collapsing. I mean it more than you do. I will not be swayed by pretty baubles. I will not swoon at celebrity. I will preach on, right till the bitter end.
In other words,you just want something to whine about so you can do your little "superiority dance" while bragging to everybody about what smart little boy you are.
You will fix NOTHING without throttling the last gasping fiscal air out of this federal behemoth.
You will fix nothing without a mentality toward federalism and the sovereignty of the various states, putting the federal beast back in its proper cage.
You will fix nothing without restoring integrity to our institutions, and piety among the people.
That means you NEED the timeless and immovable principles of fiscal conservatism.
That means you NEED the timeless and immovable principles of civil libertarianism.
That means you NEED the timeless and immovable principles of social conservatism.
You will win nothing without the principles of Conservatism.
And as of right now, y'all have none of them - Not a one.
How very nearsighted of you. The hypocrisy is in y'all = Saying you're conservatives but promoting big federal government and NYC values. Claiming conservatism and spitting upon the very principles that are its veritable definition.
I am standing on the very ground I have always stood upon. I have not moved one bitter inch. And I never, ever will.
Y'all object that I will not compromise and join you in your revelry. I tell you truly, there has been far, far too much compromise already. It's grown-up time.
Bullcrap. If there is a child about to be hit by a bus, and your plan is to blow bubbles at it, you can bet I will be doing something else. This is no different.
So,how are you planning on solving that problem. Praying to Jesus? Sending a note to Santa at the North Pole? Jumping into the air three times and clicking your heels?
Or maybe just holding your breath until you turn blue?
-
@aligncare
I have not bowed out of the struggle because I refuse to support your misbegotten effort.
You have me laughing with your inane efforts to make me bow and accept the chains you are forging.
I will simply direct my efforts toward something effective instead.
@roamer_1
Ahhh,NOW I understand!
You are a "Conscientious Objector" in the war to maintain our freedoms!
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
SOS! Different day.
Everybody wants to get to the same place but never get there because they spend ALL of their time arguing endlessly about which car they should ride in!
-
22222frying pan
Why is it so all fire important that everyone thinks and votes as you do?
This attitude more than any other is the source of the never ending flame wars here.
@aligncare @sneakypete you have your opinion on trump...cool.
@roamer_1 has his opinions...cool
I was where roamer was, now I lie somewhere between the two of you...cool
Let bygones be bygones...each man votes according to his personal conscience...for Gods sakes, we’re on the same side...let it friggin go.
-
@sneakypete
How very nearsighted of you. The hypocrisy is in y'all = Saying you're conservatives but promoting big federal government and NYC values.
You wouldn't understand Conservatism if it bit you on the ass. You are the adult equivalent of a 6 year old living in your fantasy land and screaming "It's all about me,me,ME,DAMMIT!" to your mommy.
Conservatism is a political philosophy geared towards preserving and protecting the nation as established under the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. It is NOT about pleasing any one selfish individual that is so bullheaded they refuse to recognize that other people exist,also.
Claiming conservatism and spitting upon the very principles that are its veritable definition.
Look in a mirror when you say that.
I am standing on the very ground I have always stood upon. I have not moved one bitter inch. And I never, ever will.
That just means you are incapable of learning or considering others.
If there is a child about to be hit by a bus, and your plan is to blow bubbles at it, you can bet I will be doing something else.
You will be saying "It's not MY job,man!"
-
SOS! Different day.
Everybody wants to get to the same place but never get there because they spend ALL of their time arguing endlessly about which car they should ride in!
I am beginning to think it is because some folks have nothing better to do than participate in the same never-ending argument for hours upon hours each day and night?
:shrug:
-
Horse Hillary! NAME the "principled conservative by" YOUR standards that was running.
Cruz or Castle.
In other words,you just want something to whine about so you can do your little "superiority dance" while bragging to everybody about what smart little boy you are.
Nonsense. You're drooling again.
So,how are you planning on solving that problem. Praying to Jesus? Sending a note to Santa at the North Pole? Jumping into the air three times and clicking your heels?
Or maybe just holding your breath until you turn blue?
Tell me why my plans are any of your damn business... I don't answer to you.
-
Does this thread need locking?
-
You wouldn't understand Conservatism if it bit you on the ass. You are the adult equivalent of a 6 year old living in your fantasy land and screaming "It's all about me,me,ME,DAMMIT!" to your mommy.
No, it is not about me. and has never been about me. It has been about supporting and fighting for principle things. Things that are always true.
When your movement does not possess a single one of those always-true things, What should that tell you about your movement?
And why should I help you (try to) tear them down?
I will not.
-
Does this thread need locking?
@Mod5
Not yet
No ones gotten too stupid yet
-
@Mod5
Not yet
No ones gotten too stupid yet
That's debatable, my friend. What's lost here IMO is the complete silence from the Trump faction on the latest disastrous budget deal signed by Trump two days ago.
For all the yapping about NTs not "fighting" for Trump, those same Trump supporters are giving him a pass on a clear abdication from his comments of last year, when he vowed he would never sign a bad budget bill.
-
Does this thread need locking?
LOL! NOT!!
It's past time that these virtue-signaling idiots are put in their place.
And answer this question? What's the difference between a poster mocking our President, our First Lady, or Christians?
The rules here are so long as it's not directed at a specific poster, there is no crime.
What's good for the goose.....
-
That's debatable, my friend. What's lost here IMO is the complete silence from the Trump faction on the latest disastrous budget deal signed by Trump two days ago.
Okay. My comment is that I hate the bill. But that's part of what happens when Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker.
My reaction is that we need to elect a more conservative Congress.
-
I am beginning to think it is because some folks have nothing better to do than participate in the same never-ending argument for hours upon hours each day and night?
:shrug:
I'm beginning to think you are right @EdJames!
-
Does this thread need locking?
Nope! But I sorely wish there was a way for me to unsubscribe from it!
-
Nope! But I sorely wish there was a way for me to unsubscribe from it!
Me too, I said all I wanted to say several pages ago. Can't believe this thing is still going on and is still popping up in my Updated Topics.
-
There's a way off, but the cure is worse than the disease. You have to delete your posts from the thread.
-
There's a way off, but the cure is worse than the disease. You have to delete your posts from the thread.
Thanks Cyber. I'm lazy and don't want to have to sift through pages and pages of drivel to find my posts. happy77
-
There's a way off, but the cure is worse than the disease. You have to delete your posts from the thread.
*****rollingeyes***** **nononono*
-
Thanks Cyber. I'm lazy and don't want to have to sift through pages and pages of drivel to find my posts. happy77
I couldn't find all my posts on the What are you listening to thread. :shrug:
-
There's a way off, but the cure is worse than the disease. You have to delete your posts from the thread.
Yikes! With all our computer technology is that the best we got? Erase your brilliant thoughts?
-
Okay. My comment is that I hate the bill. But that's part of what happens when Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker.
My reaction is that we need to elect a more conservative Congress.
:thumbsup:
-
I couldn't find all my posts on the What are you listening to thread. :shrug:
I resent that comment @Cyber Liberty wink777
-
I couldn't find all my posts on the What are you listening to thread. :shrug:
Ooooo............. I want off that one too!
-
I am beginning to think it is because some folks have nothing better to do than participate in the same never-ending argument for hours upon hours each day and night?
:shrug:
Isn't that the essence of every political forum? Standing up for what you believe in?
(The reason it's "never ending," is that some folks who once claimed to believe in the same things no longer do and argue against Conservatism).
-
I thought the 'Share what you are listening to now' Thread was brilliant inspiration (on my part). So much for rationalization with some Briefers. Now I'm glad it's stuck in your updated topics thread. :tongue2:
-
Cruz or Castle.
@roamer_1
You are dreaming. About Cruz,anyway. I have forgotten what I knew about Castle,but I do remember Cruz is too smart and practical to fulfill your dreams,even if I don't trust him very much.
Politics is the art of the possible,and you have to get elected before you can do anything.
Tell me why my plans are any of your damn business... I don't answer to you.
Duhhhh,you are coming on here every day ranting and raving about how much our politicians suck because they never do the right thing,and now you are bitching because I ask you what the right thing is and who would do it?
-
Hey, not all is lost. I got out of this thread what seems to be an awesome Tuna Noodle Casserole recipe -- but still waiting to find out what kind of homemade bread is going to be served -- or did I miss it?? :shrug:
-
For all the yapping about NTs not "fighting" for Trump, those same Trump supporters are giving him a pass on a clear abdication from his comments of last year, when he vowed he would never sign a bad budget bill.
@Night Hides Not Hides
You DO know that Congress writes the budget and that what would happen if Trump or any other President refused to sign it,right?
In case you don't ,EVERYTHING would shut down due to lack of funding. Airports,hospitals,railroads,trucking companies,and even banks.
Which means NOBODY would have any money other than what they happened to have in the pockets or buried in their back yards.
Yet you actually wanted this to happen and want to blame Trump for what Congress voted for?
-
Okay. My comment is that I hate the bill. But that's part of what happens when Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker.
My reaction is that we need to elect a more conservative Congress.
@Maj. Bill Martin
But.....,but...,but...,where's the fun in that? We MUST blame Trump for everything in the entire universe or everything goes all to hell and maybe our beloved RINO's will never get elected again?
-
Ooooo............. I want off that one too!
@musiclady
Doesn't everybody?
The only solution may be for Admin to lock the thread,but that can be an ugly door to open and a VERY clunky way to run a railroad.
-
Hey, not all is lost. I got out of this thread what seems to be an awesome Tuna Noodle Casserole recipe -- but still waiting to find out what kind of homemade bread is going to be served -- or did I miss it?? :shrug:
I prefer the honey whole wheat with tuna.
-
I prefer the honey whole wheat with tuna.
Sounds wonderful! happy77
-
@musiclady
Doesn't everybody?
The only solution may be for Admin to lock the thread,but that can be an ugly door to open and a VERY clunky way to run a railroad.
Knowing now how a few Briefers feel about MY Thread (Share what you are listening to now), If you delete it, again, @sneakypete I won't bitch to the Admin, this time.
-
Knowing now how a few Briefers feel about MY Thread (Share what you are listening to now), If you delete it, again, @sneakypete I won't bitch to the Admin, this time.
@corbe
Huh? I have never deleted a thread in my life. Or asked for one to be deleted. I WOULD like a software solution to this problem that allows us all to unsubscribe from any thread we are no longer interested in,though.
Sometimes you just get burnt-out on something and need to take a break. That doesn't mean you might not want the ability to go back to it at some later time. If it is deleted,neither you nor anyone else will have that ability.
Not that I expect that to happen. I have even given up on asking for ping lists.
-
Isn't that the essence of every political forum? Standing up for what you believe in?
(The reason it's "never ending," is that some folks who once claimed to believe in the same things no longer do and argue against Conservatism).
That sounds like a very limited and pessimistic view of a "political forum."
Everyday there are dozens and dozens of threads posted, many with new information, new topics on events that are unfolding in the present. Many of them have implications for what will be happening in the near and distant future. Most of them end up with few or no comments.
Some of the topics are extremely enlightening, some are amusing or entertaining, some are downright useless....
The reason that the dead end arguments are "never ending" is that every few days a certain thread garners an excess of attention because a handful of people spend hours and hours arguing the same tired nonsense that has zero chance of impacting reality. A handful of votes one way or the other, spread across several states will not even be notable in a rounding error. The given thread goes on for days.... until the same tired crap starts up again in a new thread....
As Axe noted earlier in this thread, it is insanity to have such an unhealthy interest in how some anonymous people on the Internet say that they will vote. Who the eff cares??
-
I understand @sneakypete and perhaps I'm being a little too sensitive. It's all good.
-
Hey, not all is lost. I got out of this thread what seems to be an awesome Tuna Noodle Casserole recipe -- but still waiting to find out what kind of homemade bread is going to be served -- or did I miss it?? :shrug:
I agree, that recipe sounds amazing as does the @DCPatriot meatloaf recipe (although I am at loss as to why I need a gallon of sauce/gravy for those two meatloafs?)...
Worth slogging through the nonsense to get those recipes!!
wink777
-
Knowing now how a few Briefers feel about MY Thread (Share what you are listening to now), If you delete it, again, @sneakypete I won't bitch to the Admin, this time.
@corbe, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that thread, it is quite entertaining, I enjoy it when I choose to either post in it, or listen to the tunes...
It isn't your fault that some people are too stupid to understand that they don't have to click on it, regardless of where it appears....
:shrug:
-
The reason that the dead end arguments are "never ending" is that every few days a certain thread garners an excess of attention because a handful of people spend hours and hours arguing the same tired nonsense that has zero chance of impacting reality. A handful of votes one way or the other, spread across several states will not even be notable in a rounding error. The given thread goes on for days.... until the same tired crap starts up again in a new thread....
As Axe noted earlier in this thread, it is insanity to have such an unhealthy interest in how some anonymous people on the Internet say that they will vote. Who the eff cares??
Come on, man. That's not the issue at all.
It's about calling narcissists out, who think THEIR vote is 'special'.
...who won't even admit/recognize that we're down to "Trump's GOP" vs "The Left that would love to see you Dead"
...yet still whine like the little beotches they are because the GOP isn't cutting costs and reducing the deficit/debt (2 separate things)
We don't appreciate that kind of pontification of sorts...and frankly it's pornographic. :2popcorn:
-
I agree, that recipe sounds amazing as does the @DCPatriot meatloaf recipe (although I am at loss as to why I need a gallon of sauce/gravy for those two meatloafs?)...
Worth slogging through the nonsense to get those recipes!!
wink777
It's two cups of ketchup to 4 cups of water....not quarts.
Plus, the sauce cooks down and thickens. I use a porcelain turkey roasting pan. Covered.
-
Come on, man. That's not the issue at all.
It's about calling narcissists out, who think THEIR vote is 'special'.
...who won't even admit/recognize that we're down to "Trump's GOP" vs "The Left that would love to see you Dead"
...yet still whine like the little beotches they are because the GOP isn't cutting costs and reducing the deficit/debt (2 separate things)
We don't appreciate that kind of pontification of sorts...and frankly it's pornographic. :2popcorn:
I say, Come on, man..... who cares?
For those that live in states that will definitely see the EVs go to Trump in 2020.... one or two votes one way or the other aren't worth arguing about....
:shrug:
.
-
It's two cups of ketchup to 4 cups of water....not quarts.
Plus, the sauce cooks down and thickens. I use a porcelain turkey roasting pan. Covered.
Oh, OK, that makes sense.... when I saw the "4 quarts of water" I was like.... WTF??
:silly:
-
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67503231_372815246725659_3019475271670562816_n.png?_nc_cat=107&_nc_oc=AQmMbfkLaSwRdAycOSnDOWNRs_yaQk0YFhx9LCzVrX8JhWPnlmbdWFo002GiypRhJno&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=7bc13d472b06c4cf74546c775e0a9546&oe=5DDF87B7)
-
Oh, OK, that makes sense.... when I saw the "4 quarts of water" I was like.... WTF??
:silly:
Thanks for catching that, @EdJames :beer: :laugh:
-
@roamer_1
Yeah,MUCH better to give up without a fight,and the blame what happens on the people who actually voted in an effort to halt the loss of our freedoms,right?
Seems to me what you "Principled voters" (roflmao!) want most of all is to duck responsibility so you can claim it wasn't your fault when our system collapses. You are "conscientious objectors" in the war to retain and regain our freedoms. Now,being a BIG fan of personal freedoms,I don't personally give a damn if you vote or not. That does NOT mean I will sit by quietly and not point out your hypocrisy as our system is destroyed and you sit back and smugly claim "It wasn't MY fault. I had several hissy-fits,but it didn't work!"
The person that stands by and does nothing while seeing a tragedy develop and happen HAS to share guilt with the people that purposely set the tragedy in motion.
@sneakypete We aren't standing by, we just aren't joining up to contribute to the problem. Now, Halt the loss of my freedom when?
NOW I can get 10 years and a 10K fine for POSSESSING a damned gun stock, purchased legally. Not even a functioning firearm, not an integral part of the action, not an auto sear, nothing to change the mechanicals of a semi automatic rifle, but the effing STOCK?
(I don't have one, BTW, spent my money on other things.)
Yeah I'm all for halting the loss of my freedoms, but don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining Bubble Up. These things happened under Republican Administrations.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Now, what was that bullshite about preserving my freedom? Of kicking the can down the road buying time to "defuse the bomb" (maybe someone will figure out how!), while megatons more trouble is stacked on top of it?
If this 'bomb' is going to blow up sooner or later, let's get this SOB over with while I can still hope to put up a fight, while we haven't had so much nibbled away from us by our "protectors" that we can. Before those of us who still give a shit die off of old age (yes, Virginia, the old basketball tactic of running out the clock is being played on an entire generation who better remembers what it was like to be free). Because the way this crap is going, we won't have jack, and the Republic will be crushed under the totalitarian jackboots of the Muslims, the Left, or even some from the Right, (Globalists all, just with different tailors) to the tune not of battle cries, but a sniveling whimper of some snowflake looking for their safe space. Quit playing along with the demise of this country.
It was a Republican who made sure only the Government would have access to new select-fire arms, and even the ersatz of a stock that helps people operate a semi auto more efficiently has been forbidden by the same crowd.
Only fools cheer that.
The real question ignored in all that "Winning" is whether the NFA of 1934 should exist at all, along with a slew of other laws infringing the Right, but the can has been kicked so far down the road already no one can see that.
Keep in mind the real enemies of this country don't give a flying fig about any of the laws the rest of us are constrained by, and already are at a significant advantage.
Left foot, Right foot, one side cheers what the other could never get through, and the net result is that we're still shuffling down the road to totalitarianism. Even Obama's BATF didn't ban a frigging bump stock.
The frogs are cooking just fine, but if someone turns up the heat too much, they'll jump out of the pot. Shut it down or crank it up. Anything else is just slow death to the Republic, our Liberty, our Rights, and to us all.
-
I agree, that recipe sounds amazing as does the @DCPatriot meatloaf recipe (although I am at loss as to why I need a gallon of sauce/gravy for those two meatloafs?)...
Worth slogging through the nonsense to get those recipes!!
wink777
Ha! Thanks for the info -- I will have to go back and get @DCPatriot meatloaf recipe.
-
It's two cups of ketchup to 4 cups of water....not quarts.
Plus, the sauce cooks down and thickens. I use a porcelain turkey roasting pan. Covered.
Sounds delish and very rich. Will try to 1/2 the recipe though -- I loaf should be plenty for us.
Yay, I have new recipes for the coming week. Thanks guys!! 888high58888
-
Sounds delish and very rich. Will try to 1/2 the recipe though -- I loaf should be plenty for us.
Yay, I have new recipes for the coming week. Thanks guys!! 888high58888
Recipe has been in my family for generations...but ever since I was young, the one thing people said was that they wished they had more of the sauce for putting over mashed potatoes, and/or the slice of meatloaf.
It does evaporate off during the 90 + minutes in the roaster.
So, I always DOUBLE it (4 cups of Heintz ketchup to 8 cups of water).
:laugh:
And why not "freeze" one of them? You won't regret it. :beer:
-
@sneakypete We aren't standing by, we just aren't joining up to contribute to the problem. Now, Halt the loss of my freedom when?
NOW I can get 10 years and a 10K fine for POSSESSING a damned gun stock, purchased legally. Not even a functioning firearm, not an integral part of the action, not an auto sear, nothing to change the mechanicals of a semi automatic rifle, but the effing STOCK?
(I don't have one, BTW, spent my money on other things.)
Yeah I'm all for halting the loss of my freedoms, but don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining Bubble Up. These things happened under Republican Administrations.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Now, what was that bullshite about preserving my freedom? Of kicking the can down the road buying time to "defuse the bomb" (maybe someone will figure out how!), while megatons more trouble is stacked on top of it?
If this 'bomb' is going to blow up sooner or later, let's get this SOB over with while I can still hope to put up a fight, while we haven't had so much nibbled away from us by our "protectors" that we can. Before those of us who still give a shit die off of old age (yes, Virginia, the old basketball tactic of running out the clock is being played on an entire generation who better remembers what it was like to be free). Because the way this crap is going, we won't have jack, and the Republic will be crushed under the totalitarian jackboots of the Muslims, the Left, or even some from the Right, (Globalists all, just with different tailors) to the tune not of battle cries, but a sniveling whimper of some snowflake looking for their safe space. Quit playing along with the demise of this country.
It was a Republican who made sure only the Government would have access to new select-fire arms, and even the ersatz of a stock that helps people operate a semi auto more efficiently has been forbidden by the same crowd.
Only fools cheer that.
The real question ignored in all that "Winning" is whether the NFA of 1934 should exist at all, along with a slew of other laws infringing the Right, but the can has been kicked so far down the road already no one can see that.
Keep in mind the real enemies of this country don't give a flying fig about any of the laws the rest of us are constrained by, and already are at a significant advantage.
Left foot, Right foot, one side cheers what the other could never get through, and the net result is that we're still shuffling down the road to totalitarianism. Even Obama's BATF didn't ban a frigging bump stock.
The frogs are cooking just fine, but if someone turns up the heat too much, they'll jump out of the pot. Shut it down or crank it up. Anything else is just slow death to the Republic, our Liberty, our Rights, and to us all.
@Smokin Joe
I understand your arguments about gun control,although if it were legal and you offered me a free one,I have no use for or desire to own a full-auto weapon. I like to put each bullet where I want it to go. Yes,they are useful in combat assaults by massed troops or in an ambush situation,but I can't see me ever going on an assault again or ambush again.
As for the rest of it,you are placing too much emphasis on Republicans. Or more accurately,alleged Republicans. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Focus on tossing any alleged Republicans out of office in your local and state races,and THEN focus on the nationals.
BUT........ Do NOT focus on them exclusively. Focus on them at the same time you focus on getting the local and state Dims tossed out on the street.
The real problem is when it comes to the career politicians,there is damn little difference these days between the two at the national level. They have made and are making so many back room deals to help out each other and their relatives,they might as well be in the same party.
But know one thing to be a fact. If you aren't a party member and voting in all the local,state,and federal elections,you are doing nothing but committing political masturbation. It might feel good,but it ain't the same thing and nothing will come from it.
-
I understand @sneakypete and perhaps I'm being a little too sensitive. It's all good.
Well, @corbe - I just remembered that I had a lovely conversation with dear, sweet Machiavelli about Beethoven on your thread.
So I'm glad you posted it! happy77
-
Thank You @musiclady with all the sadness in the News today, I'm on Youtube, familiar Blues songs I've already posted.
-
That sounds like a very limited and pessimistic view of a "political forum."
Everyday there are dozens and dozens of threads posted, many with new information, new topics on events that are unfolding in the present. Many of them have implications for what will be happening in the near and distant future. Most of them end up with few or no comments.
Some of the topics are extremely enlightening, some are amusing or entertaining, some are downright useless....
The reason that the dead end arguments are "never ending" is that every few days a certain thread garners an excess of attention because a handful of people spend hours and hours arguing the same tired nonsense that has zero chance of impacting reality. A handful of votes one way or the other, spread across several states will not even be notable in a rounding error. The given thread goes on for days.... until the same tired crap starts up again in a new thread....
As Axe noted earlier in this thread, it is insanity to have such an unhealthy interest in how some anonymous people on the Internet say that they will vote. Who the eff cares??
I'm not sure you've interpreted what's going on here correctly, @EdJames . I don't think it's so much who other people are voting for, but rather the reasons that they feel a person deserves their vote.
The fact that it's anonymous isn't really relevant. A political forum is a place where one can express values and views that one thinks are most important. And I don't think it's yours (or my) place to tell anyone here they shouldn't be discussing anything that is of interest to them.
It would be stupid for me to tell people not to talk about cars or computers or FLOTUS fashion just because those topics don't interest me. I think it's equally wrong for people to tell others not to express their views on the Constitution, the importance of morality, the importance of beating the Dems, or any other justification people have for their votes.
I repeat: the reason the discussion are (in your opinion) "endless," is that they continue to be important to other people.
And that's why I think the people griping about what other people choose to discuss need to cool it, and leave any thread that you don't find interesting.
-
I'm not sure you've interpreted what's going on here correctly, @EdJames . I don't think it's so much who other people are voting for, but rather the reasons that they feel a person deserves their vote.
The fact that it's anonymous isn't really relevant. A political forum is a place where one can express values and views that one thinks are most important. And I don't think it's yours (or my) place to tell anyone here they shouldn't be discussing anything that is of interest to them.
It would be stupid for me to tell people not to talk about cars or computers or FLOTUS fashion just because those topics don't interest me. I think it's equally wrong for people to tell others not to express their views on the Constitution, the importance of morality, the importance of beating the Dems, or any other justification people have for their votes.
I repeat: the reason the discussion are (in your opinion) "endless," is that they continue to be important to other people.
And that's why I think the people griping about what other people choose to discuss need to cool it, and leave any thread that you don't find interesting.
I'll comment on any thread that I damn well please.
And I'll call a spade a spade any time that I damn well please.
-
I'll comment on any thread that I damn well please.
And I'll call a spade a spade any time that I damn well please.
Just remember that doing that is a lifelong thing. :beer:
-
I'll comment on any thread that I damn well please.
And I'll call a spade a spade any time that I damn well please.
That is the right of everyone else on this forum as well.
My only point.
No need to have a hissy fit. :shrug:
-
You are dreaming. About Cruz,anyway. I have forgotten what I knew about Castle,but I do remember Cruz is too smart and practical to fulfill your dreams,even if I don't trust him very much.
Politics is the art of the possible,and you have to get elected before you can do anything.
@sneakypete
Yeah, bullcrap. If we don't start looking for statesmanship instead of politics, we're already done.
Duhhhh,you are coming on here every day ranting and raving about how much our politicians suck because they never do the right thing,and now you are bitching because I ask you what the right thing is and who would do it?
No, you asked me what I personally am going to do instead of joining your pathetic club.
-
@sneakypete
No, you asked me what I personally am going to do instead of joining your pathetic club.
@roamer_1
Good to know that's how you feel about Americans who refuse to follow your quixotic brand of politics.
People like you would rather lose than be proven wrong.
-
Good to know that's how you feel about Americans who refuse to follow your quixotic brand of politics.
Right. They look just like Democrats.
People like you would rather lose than be proven wrong.
If I am wrong, I will freely admit it - and have done so here publicly before.
-
If I am wrong, I will freely admit it - and have done so here publicly before.
I doubt anyone here would get any joy in proving you "wrong", @roamer_1 . Politics is about recruiting people to join a cause, a fight. In this case, a fight that takes the form of an election with a binary choice. It is unfortunate that you choose to withdraw from this fight; there are those, with much invested, who are disappointed.
-
I doubt anyone here would get any joy in proving you "wrong", @roamer_1 . Politics is about recruiting people to join a cause, a fight. In this case, a fight that takes the form of an election with a binary choice. It is unfortunate that you choose to withdraw from this fight; there are those, with much invested, who are disappointed.
The math, @Jazzhead , is simple, and the customer is always right.
What I am looking for is plainly declared, and should be no surprise.
What I am being sold is the direct polar opposite.
The cause you describe is not my own, having not a single particle of what I want, and I have no idea why folks think they can shove it down my throat anyway, and make me like it.
Convince me of the rectitude of your position. I will listen. You of all people should know that - We have gone around and around, you and me, but I have not been afraid to stand with you, on the record, when I believe your point is right.
I am neither close-minded, nor invincibly biased. But those principled truths that I rely upon come with me... If you want my vote, and my effort, and my treasure, and my blood, those true things must necessarily be present. That's what I am buying.
Show me they are there and I will gladly join with you and fight to the very death, like I did for the TEA party, and many a cause in the same vein.
But they are not, and therein lies the problem.
-
Recipe has been in my family for generations...but ever since I was young, the one thing people said was that they wished they had more of the sauce for putting over mashed potatoes, and/or the slice of meatloaf.
It does evaporate off during the 90 + minutes in the roaster.
So, I always DOUBLE it (4 cups of Heintz ketchup to 8 cups of water).
:laugh:
And why not "freeze" one of them? You won't regret it. :beer:
Freeze one --- geez -- why didn't I think of that? happy77 Thanks for the recipe @DCPatriot
-
@Smokin Joe
I understand your arguments about gun control,although if it were legal and you offered me a free one,I have no use for or desire to own a full-auto weapon. I like to put each bullet where I want it to go. Yes,they are useful in combat assaults by massed troops or in an ambush situation,but I can't see me ever going on an assault again or ambush again.
As for the rest of it,you are placing too much emphasis on Republicans. Or more accurately,alleged Republicans. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Focus on tossing any alleged Republicans out of office in your local and state races,and THEN focus on the nationals.
BUT........ Do NOT focus on them exclusively. Focus on them at the same time you focus on getting the local and state Dims tossed out on the street.
The real problem is when it comes to the career politicians,there is damn little difference these days between the two at the national level. They have made and are making so many back room deals to help out each other and their relatives,they might as well be in the same party.
But know one thing to be a fact. If you aren't a party member and voting in all the local,state,and federal elections,you are doing nothing but committing political masturbation. It might feel good,but it ain't the same thing and nothing will come from it.
@sneakypete While I am with you on the whole idea of making each shot count, it is the idea that I'm being told that I can't. An AK-47 is available in most of the world's markets for a few hundred at most (less than many AR-15 semi autos in the US today), but one here costs as much (or more) as a good used Harley. Legal, transferable, class III AK 47s run from $8500 to $13,000 in the US, putting them well out of the price range of the average enthusiast. As for stoner variants, pre 1986, fuhgeddaboutit! The only variant i saw for sale is a mere $23K. For that kind of change, I can get a Barrett, optics, ammo, and enough trick stuff to keep me out on the range and out of range.
These (Class III) prices are artificially high because only police and military can have ones made after 1986. Republicans signed off on that.
Considering I have no criminal record, I have been background checked, etc, have a CCW, it would not be like it was being sold to some maniac. But the machinations (in this case, of Republicans) have ensured the only likely way I'd ever own one is to inherit it.
That's like saying sure, you can own a car, and putting the base level Yugo at 50K.
Now, I know full well what the Democrats would do to our RKBA, just for starters, and I use that as an example because it's plain enough what the founders meant, and it is a Right they fully intended to keep uninfringed. But when the guard dogs are off making puppies with the coyotes, the henhouse of our Rights is in serious trouble. And that's what I'm seeing.
What I have yet to witness is the reverse--that for all the ballyhoo about Civil Rights, this is one that is on the table, a small slice at a time, early in the election cycle (just after swearing in) so people will gloss over the fact they've been robbed again in the face of the looting and burning the other side threatens. Even the AWB died an organic death, victim of its own sunset clause, not a legislative reversal.
I'm not buying the BS. I refuse to send a nickel to a Party that didn't even let me vote in a Presidential Primary last time around.
I see them as similarly bad in that they have continually failed to live up to their promises, have failed to safeguard my Rights, Tax me even more than Obama did, dollar for dollar of income (by removing deductions for expenses integral to my making a living), and so seldom represent me it isn't funny.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
A relative signed that document, the only Catholic to do so.
To vote for anything that goes against that is to consent.
I ain't gonna.
I will vote for someone I find more credible who is more aligned with my principles.
Now, I'm just using the RKBA because it affects us all.
When I was a kid, the Riparian Rights from the original colonial land grant applied. We didn't need a license to fish, crab, clam or oyster, in effect, we owned the river bottom to the center of the channel (about a mile offshore). Then the Gubmint decreed it was all theirs, with great approval from the masses. That beach that was part of our front yard suddenly became "public property", with all the drunks, litter, and other not so pleasant things that come with that. We had to buy licenses to fish, even just for our own use.
We still paid taxes at a horrendous rate, more than folks with property on the state roads, and it didn't cost the State a nickel to put that river in.
Needless to say, we never received a dime of compensation for the robbery. But things that look good to the masses and F*** over the individual have become the stock in trade of government. It is only a matter of time until all are affected, each in their own way.
So, those who are reticent or reluctant to embrace the protection of my (our) fundamental Rights are off my dance card, I really don't care what labels they want to wear in the political arena.
Screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me.
-
@sneakypete
These (Class III) prices are artificially high because only police and military can have ones made after 1986. Republicans signed off on that.
@Smokin Joe
True. Yeah,most of the pols voting and pushing for it were Dims,but they could have never gotten the law passed without help from the alleged Republicans.
Considering I have no criminal record, I have been background checked, etc, have a CCW, it would not be like it was being sold to some maniac. But the machinations (in this case, of Republicans) have ensured the only likely way I'd ever own one is to inherit it.
IF this is important to you,you might want to check on that one. It is PROBABLY dependent on where you live and the results of a brand new background check. I have no doubt that is some locations the locals might use this as an excuse to deny you the squirt gun,and then use that as a basis to take away your CCW permit.
Remember,this stuff has NOTHING to do with being fair,and everything to do with "the law". "The Law" is anything the locals want it to be unless you have enough money to fight it in court to the point where the public money they spend to screw up becomes public,and an issue when an election is coming up.
We all KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that "the law" in this and every other country is dependent on who you are,your political connections,and how much money you have. For example,one of Ted Kennedy's bodyguards got caught carrying a full-auto Uzi under his coat while screwing up and trying to go through the public entrance. Yes,he WAS briefly detained and the Uzi was taken from him,but after one phone call he was released,had the Uzi returned to him,and IIRC,they even apologized for detaining him.
What do you think the odds are of this happening if it had been either thee or me?
When I was a kid, the Riparian Rights from the original colonial land grant applied. We didn't need a license to fish, crab, clam or oyster, in effect, we owned the river bottom to the center of the channel (about a mile offshore).
That is the first I ever heard of this,and my family were commercial fishermen going back to the 1700's. My very first job was as the only deckhand on my uncle's 38 foot shimp boat the summer I was 13.
Then the Gubmint decreed it was all theirs, with great approval from the masses. That beach that was part of our front yard suddenly became "public property", with all the drunks, litter, and other not so pleasant things that come with that.
The beaches,up to the high water tide mark ARE public property. Deal with it.
We had to buy licenses to fish, even just for our own use.
I can never remember a time when we didn't,but then again,nobody in my family ever had to go to a market to buy seafood. We damn sure had to have commercial fishing licenses,though.
We still paid taxes at a horrendous rate, more than folks with property on the state roads, and it didn't cost the State a nickel to put that river in.
What was keeping you from selling for a big profit and buying cheaper land that didn't have river frontage?
Needless to say, we never received a dime of compensation for the robbery.
Nor should you have received any compensation. You are just pissed because you weren't allowed to charge the public to use the beachfront near your property. What next,you going to claim you owned the water half-way to the next continent?
-
Back on the topic of GOP fears retirement and in reading posts about those who don't want to vote Trump I would like to make one final comment; not to persuade anyone one way or the other as I believe we should all vote our conscience, but something that I reflect on from time to time. Like him or not President Donald J. Trump has brought a sense of patriotism to this country. Patriotism that was certainly absent during the Bammy's 8 year reign of terror. The President's pre-inaugural celebration brought tears to my eyes. We have a President that no longer apologizes for the greatness of America. His fourth of July celebration was criticized! Criticized for celebrating the freedom of this nation. Yes, by all means vote your conscience.
He deserves absolute credit for this and a huge pat on the back! U.S.A. :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWvg7KRZqco (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWvg7KRZqco#)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Pwq0h_HBU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Pwq0h_HBU#)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDDPkVGPi0A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDDPkVGPi0A#)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QUEwObOaVU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QUEwObOaVU#)
-
@Smokin Joe
True. Yeah,most of the pols voting and pushing for it were Dims,but they could have never gotten the law passed without help from the alleged Republicans.
IF this is important to you,you might want to check on that one. It is PROBABLY dependent on where you live and the results of a brand new background check. I have no doubt that is some locations the locals might use this as an excuse to deny you the squirt gun,and then use that as a basis to take away your CCW permit.
Remember,this stuff has NOTHING to do with being fair,and everything to do with "the law". "The Law" is anything the locals want it to be unless you have enough money to fight it in court to the point where the public money they spend to screw up becomes public,and an issue when an election is coming up.
We all KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that "the law" in this and every other country is dependent on who you are,your political connections,and how much money you have. For example,one of Ted Kennedy's bodyguards got caught carrying a full-auto Uzi under his coat while screwing up and trying to go through the public entrance. Yes,he WAS briefly detained and the Uzi was taken from him,but after one phone call he was released,had the Uzi returned to him,and IIRC,they even apologized for detaining him.
What do you think the odds are of this happening if it had been either thee or me?
To be honest, I use it as an example because it is a good one. If I ever decide I want something full auto, I'll build it, and the means to keep it quiet as well, but having that just isn't high on my list of things to do. I don't like the loss of the ability to exercise the Right, whether I choose to exercise the Right or not. Part of freedom is the ability to choose, so like being told you can't go someplace you might never have any intention to go, being told I can't have something doesn't sit well with me.
That is the first I ever heard of this,and my family were commercial fishermen going back to the 1700's. My very first job was as the only deckhand on my uncle's 38 foot shimp boat the summer I was 13.
The beaches,up to the high water tide mark ARE public property. Deal with it.
Be enlightened. (https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1996-05-26-1996147105-story.html)
Well, they are now, by decree, but at the time of the land grant (1641, MD), the grantee owned the bottom of the river to the center of the channel the land adjacent, and the beaches, too. (Maryland colony).
When I was a kid, you still had to have a license for commercial fishing (I held one at 14), but non-commercially, for you and yours, none was required, about like any landowner having gratis permits (https://gf.nd.gov/news/3051) for hunting the deer on their property.
Even today, some Native tribes exert their Riparian Rights over stretches of River, and there has been conflict with the Army Corps of Engineers over it, but the tribes prevailed where there was tribal land on both sides of the river. http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/reservations.html (http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/reservations.html)
What was keeping you from selling for a big profit and buying cheaper land that didn't have river frontage?
Why do Jews and Arabs fight over some crappy patch of desert?
Your people become connected to the land. The land has been in the family for going on 400 years (378, to be exact). I filled hay barns there that were built before the Civil War (the Yankees didn't burn them all). It was ours before any of these various governments existed. We grew up on the river, it was our home, our ancestors are buried there, the roots are deep, and if I have to explain beyond that, you wouldn't understand.
Nor should you have received any compensation. You are just pissed because you weren't allowed to charge the public to use the beachfront near your property. What next,you going to claim you owned the water half-way to the next continent?
There was no claim beyond the property lines projected to the center of the main channel, which was the law then. No one owned the water, just the right to fish in it, or harvest oysters from the beds. THis was an extension of the common law, from colonial times, when the original grant to Cornelius Calvert, Lord Baltimore, included the bottoms of those estuaries and rivers, some 1.6 million acres. This was snatched by a court decision in 1971.
At this point, I'd be satisfied for the family to have the mineral rights (subsurface), not that there will be any drilling there any time soon. There was an exploration well drilled about 20 miles away on the Virginia side (Near Colonial Beach, 1980s), looking for natural gas, but subsequent drilling was shut down by envirowhackos, despite some incredible environmental safeguards taken.
We never charged anyone to use any of the mile or so of riverfront in (extended) family hands, if they asked. No way we'd make some commercialized sh*tshow out of our front yards, either. There are those who have Marinas and such in the area, and that is fine for them. The Potomac estuaries aren't the best place to swim nowadays, anyway (it was far better when I was a kid). https://wtvr.com/2019/07/27/man-with-simple-cut-says-he-contracted-flesh-eating-bacteria/ (https://wtvr.com/2019/07/27/man-with-simple-cut-says-he-contracted-flesh-eating-bacteria/) No surprise, the 'Swamp' is upriver, and what drains from that has only gotten nastier.
If you want to get all 'beachy', better to go to the coast and play in the ocean.
Keep in mind we've been there for 17, 18 generations. It is ours.
But try pulling your boat up on the Kennedy's beaches and having a hot dog roast.
Why are they any different?
Suppose you took the same attitude toward someone who has a farm.
After all, people should be able to camp anywhere, right?
"This land is your land, this land is my land", right?
How about in your wheat field? Maybe in the corn crop?
I wouldn't have had that sh*tshow in my front yard for all the tea in China.
I just hated cleaning up used diapers and broken glass, and all the rest of the trash those liberal 'share the land types' left behind.
-
There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.
:yowsa: :amen:
-
Well, they are now, by decree, but at the time of the land grant (1641, MD), the grantee owned the bottom of the river to the center of the channel the land adjacent, and the beaches, too. (Maryland colony).
@Smokin Joe
Joe,that was before America even existed as a country,and the land grants were granted by the King of England.
When we became America and Americans,we established our own laws,most of which were designed to be fair tot he average citizen who was no longer a subject. Which meant Americans couldn't prevent Americans from enjoying the public property that was a public beach.
When I was a kid, you still had to have a license for commercial fishing (I held one at 14), but non-commercially, for you and yours, none was required, about like any landowner having gratis permits (https://gf.nd.gov/news/3051) for hunting the deer on their property.
I am fairly certain that farmers even today can kill deer out of season in order to protect their crops. The typical landowner in suburban whatever obviously can't be hauling out his 300 Winchest Magnum to shoot the deer eating his wife's flowers,though. The difference is the amount of danger the public is exposed to.
Why do Jews and Arabs fight over some crappy patch of desert?
Because it's traditional and force of habit.
At this point, I'd be satisfied for the family to have the mineral rights (subsurface), not that there will be any drilling there any time soon. There was an exploration well drilled about 20 miles away on the Virginia side (Near Colonial Beach, 1980s), looking for natural gas, but subsequent drilling was shut down by envirowhackos, despite some incredible environmental safeguards taken.
I don't even know enough about the pros and cons of that to guess which side I would come down on,but I tend to THINK I would be with the landowners.
But try pulling your boat up on the Kennedy's beaches and having a hot dog roast.
Why are they any different?
They own the local and state politicians.
-
@sneakypete Riparian Rights, granted by the Crown of England with the land grants were repealed by judicial edict in.....1971. Three Hundred and thirty years later.
Yep, our ownership antedated that by a considerable amount of time, just as it antedated any of the governments claiming sway.