This post is not an opinion piece and therefore can stay in the Politics forum.@unknown
@unknown
?? What opinion does this story present?
I can't see how this helps Trump much as anyone likely to hold their nose and vote for Trump is going to do so anyway and they didn't need Cruz handing them the hankie. It's about 2020 and I think he has made the political calculation that letting some of his supporters down now is better than alienating the GOP establishment that he will need in 2020.
Now that I've gotten the preliminary I told you so's out of the way on the other thread, I'd like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Senator Cruz for getting over his hurt and for coming to his senses. He must've used that extra strength Preparation-H I sent him.
Now that I've gotten the preliminary I told you so's out of the way on the other thread, I'd like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Senator Cruz for getting over his hurt and for coming to his senses. He must've used that extra strength Preparation-H I sent him.
This post is not an opinion piece and therefore can stay in the Politics forum.
Did it ever occur to you that showing a little grace would be more likely to persuade others to your side? Is it truly necessary to rub this in the faces of other people? Cruz made a tough decision because he thought it was for the good of the country. Is just a tiny bit of respect too much to ask?
I don't know what it is with you and several others always referring to their hurt butt...it's sickening and please stop it.
Now that I've gotten the preliminary I told you so's out of the way on the other thread, I'd like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Senator Cruz for getting over his hurt and for coming to his senses. He must've used that extra strength Preparation-H I sent him.
Likewise. Its great to have Cruz on board and his voice is needed in terms of steering the GOP and our future president (Donald Trump) on the conservative path. Cruz likely just saved his political career by recognizing the existential threat of a Hillary presidency....I'm sure it was a hard pill for him to swallow and he has shown great maturity in endorsing our nominee.Unfortunately, the time for all of that was four years ago. We did what you are suggesting four years ago when we supported Mitt Romney. It didn't work, and look around you. Everything you are saying about what will happen under a Hillary presidency is already happening under Obama, a man sinister enough to even beat Hillary at her own game. The damage is already being done. We had our chance doing it that way, and we failed.
We cannot afford to lose this election...having lived through 50 years of such races...I have to say, this is easily the most important election since 1980. If Hillary Clinton walks into the White House, the world and our nation change dramatically, permanently, and in an alarmingly liberal direction...Alinsky-ite socialism becomes cemented as mainstream Dem party thought and liberalism becomes a right wing doctrine clung to by the few remaining GOP remnants. The wild extreme will be genuine conservatism and it will die a slow, steady and ugly death as its adherents dwindle to nothing.
No hyperbole here, just an assessment of how significant this single election is...and don't buy into the cop out that declares people say that same thing every four years. Which they do...but this time, they are actually correct. This one is different, if we veer Clintonian Left, there will be no coming back. So yes, sometimes you ally yourself with a Stalin to beat a Hitler...its not as morally satisfying as being rolled over by a German tank, but in the end you can't effect ANY positive change if you've been annihilated by the greater of two evils.
Grace? Excuse me? Where were you while packs of Cruz supporters and assorted #NeverTrumpers ganged up on and ravaged with streams of vile insults the handful of Trump supporters here?
No no no, this doesn't just end with the cult leader Cruz endorsing Trump. No, it's not that easy. It doesn't just stop with that.
The way you people HERE treated Trump supporters was nothing less than shameful and I won't soon forget that.
Grace? Excuse me? Where were you while packs of Cruz supporters and assorted #NeverTrumpers ganged up on and ravaged with streams of vile insults the handful of Trump supporters here?
No no no, this doesn't just end with the cult leader Cruz endorsing Trump. No, it's not that easy. It doesn't just stop with that.
The way you people HERE treated Trump supporters was nothing less than shameful and I won't soon forget that.
Battle lines being defined. Bush comes out saying he will vote for Hillary Rodham. Cruz comes out with a vote for Trump.
This is the entrenched establishment vs. the rebel upstarts. Old blood against new blood. Time to choose a side like Ted did.
Are you for Trump? Or are you for Hillary? You can stand on the sidelines if you want to, but this is the decision everyone else is making.
Likewise. Its great to have Cruz on board and his voice is needed in terms of steering the GOP and our future president (Donald Trump) on the conservative path. Cruz likely just saved his political career by recognizing the existential threat of a Hillary presidency....I'm sure it was a hard pill for him to swallow and he has shown great maturity in endorsing our nominee.
We cannot afford to lose this election...having lived through 50 years of such races...I have to say, this is easily the most important election since 1980. If Hillary Clinton walks into the White House, the world and our nation change dramatically, permanently, and in an alarmingly liberal direction...Alinsky-ite socialism becomes cemented as mainstream Dem party thought and liberalism becomes a right wing doctrine clung to by the few remaining GOP remnants. The wild extreme will be genuine conservatism and it will die a slow, steady and ugly death as its adherents dwindle to nothing.
No hyperbole here, just an assessment of how significant this single election is...and don't buy into the cop out that declares people say that same thing every four years. Which they do...but this time, they are actually correct. This one is different, if we veer Clintonian Left, there will be no coming back. So yes, sometimes you ally yourself with a Stalin to beat a Hitler...its not as morally satisfying as being rolled over by a German tank, but in the end you can't effect ANY positive change if you've been annihilated by the greater of two evils. And lets be clear, moral equivalencies cannot reasonably drawn between Hillary and Donald...she is a VASTLY greater evil.
Unfortunately, the time for all of that was four years ago. We did what you are suggesting four years ago when we supported Mitt Romney. It didn't work, and look around you. Everything you are saying about what will happen under a Hillary presidency is already happening under Obama, a man sinister enough to even beat Hillary at her own game. The damage is already being done. We had our chance doing it that way, and we failed.
At least Hillary is proven to be weaker and less effective than Obama.
...you could say my butt hurts.Get over it buttercup...your glass house is WAY too fragile.
I'll disagree with your assessment that Hillary is less effective...her complete lack of scruples make her far more dangerous than Obama IMHO. Either way, her election would cement all that Obama stood for....all that happened, as you say...these past 8 years AND validate the rising socialist movement now dominating the Dem Left. And yes, we "had our chance" and failed...and now we've been given one last opportunity to turn the ship.This time, we don't have to fail...unless our inaction itself leads to failure.
Did my kitty's say something to offend? Or, does his mere presence engender alarm? But, how could that be? He's such a friendly kitty.Nope, were just tired of your sanctimonious martyr crap.
Could it be that some folks here are beginning to smell the coffee. Could it also be the realization that your NeverTrump fantasies are about to go bust?
Could it be we're feeling a little cranky today?
Ted is basically in the same place I am. Don't like many of Trump's qualities, but sometimes chemo is the preferable option to cancer.
Did my kitty's say something to offend? Or, does his mere presence engender alarm? But, how could that be? He's such a friendly kitty.
Could it be that some folks here are beginning to smell the coffee. Could it also be the realization that your NeverTrump fantasies are about to go bust?
Could it be we're feeling a little cranky today?
Ted is basically in the same place I am. Don't like many of Trump's qualities, but sometimes chemo is the preferable option to cancer.
Trump published his COMPLETE list of potential Supreme Court nominees and stated unequivocally that he will ONLY choose from that list. I suspect THAT was the price of Cruz' endorsement.
Align, you are not wrong...we all witnessed the lynch mob mentality and the "shouting down" that Trump voters faced here. But now is the time to follow Cruz's lead and try to welcome people...acknowledging that they had MANY justified concerns about Mr. Trump. Heck, I'm a clear supporter of him and I still have reservations...it just has taken time for some to accept that Trump with his many warts is a far better option than Clinton. Let me add that the Major, in all my interactions with him, was fair and reasonable.
WTH are you talking about no one has touched this thread
Spot on post!!! Howdy @Mesaclone glad to see you are still around!! 888high58888
Cruz like most of the GOP is coming around to the realization that Trump is going to lose, the only question is how big.
Battle lines being defined. Bush comes out saying he will vote for Hillary Rodham. Cruz comes out with a vote for Trump.
This is the entrenched establishment vs. the rebel upstarts. Old blood against new blood. Time to choose a side like Ted did.
Are you for Trump? Or are you for Hillary? You can stand on the sidelines if you want to, but this is the decision everyone else is making.
I would like to posit that this endorsement has come at a price for Orange Glorious...as referenced in Cruz' own statement....Trump published his COMPLETE list of potential Supreme Court nominees and stated unequivocally that he will ONLY choose from that list. I suspect THAT was the price of Cruz' endorsement.
If true, I would say well played.
Most of us feel the same...but I will add that I detest him but it won't be the first time I've had to vote for a person I hate.
Maybe you should have posted a happy puppy. Viking Kitties not a friend to most here...LOL!
Congratulations to all the self-identifying pretend 'Conservatives' here for celebrating their choice of a lifelong Liberal NY Democrat Nationalist Populist for their monarch in the silly belief he is going to 'turn' this former Constitutional republic around with more overt statism and dictatorial decrees.
The consequences shall be theirs, and theirs alone.
LOL. Thanks for the reminder. Yes, we do want to provide as much comfort and "safe space" to the village of the banned from Free Republic. Their feelings might get hurt, you know. I should be mindful of that. Wait a minute, I was reminded of that quite frequently by administration here. Don't upset the disgruntled Cruz supporters I was told.
After all Donald Trump beat Ted Cruz in the presidential primary. How unfair was that?
LOL. Thanks for the reminder. Yes, we do want to provide as much comfort and "safe space" to the village of the banned from Free Republic. Their feelings might get hurt, you know. I should be mindful of that. Wait a minute, I was reminded of that quite frequently by administration here. Don't upset the disgruntled Cruz supporters I was told.
After all Donald Trump beat Ted Cruz in the presidential primary. How unfair was that?
What an utterly classless thing to write.
@mystery-ak
What an utterly classless thing to write.
@mystery-ak
Battle lines being defined. Bush comes out saying he will vote for Hillary Rodham. Cruz comes out with a vote for Trump.
This is the entrenched establishment vs. the rebel upstarts. Old blood against new blood. Time to choose a side like Ted did.
Are you for Trump? Or are you for Hillary? You can stand on the sidelines if you want to, but this is the decision everyone else is making.
I respect you Mesa, you're one of the bright and articulate ones, just like the major.How does anyone say this with a straight face?
But I'm sick and tired of hearing, well "he's not as bad as Hillary." No no no. Donald Trump is and always has been far superior to Hillary and to the rest of the republican field. I recognized early on Donald Trump's incredible credentials and performance history preparing him for this job as president of the United States.
Donald Trump doesn't have to take a backseat to any of them.
That is all they are going to be known for, classlessness. Just like their prince.
It's 1934 Germany folks. Just watch.
Most of us feel the same...but I will add that I detest him but it won't be the first time I've had to vote for a person I hate.My wife has been badgering me the whole year because I was vacillating about voting for Trump or a write-in. She is holding me to my promise of always voting for the least worst option, but always voting. I am now leaning to voting for Trump, but the idea of voting for this skunk makes me shudder.
Align, you are not wrong...we all witnessed the lynch mob mentality and the "shouting down" that Trump voters faced here. But now is the time to follow Cruz's lead and try to welcome people...acknowledging that they had MANY justified concerns about Mr. Trump. Heck, I'm a clear supporter of him and I still have reservations...it just has taken time for some to accept that Trump with his many warts is a far better option than Clinton. Let me add that the Major, in all my interactions with him, was fair and reasonable.
As a Trump guy, I'm fine with that deal. Though I never seriously doubted he'd pick form the list anyway...also...he added Lee to the list at Cruz's request, and that's a good thing as well.agree on both counts, mesa
That is all they are going to be known for, classlessness. Just like their prince.
It's 1934 Germany folks. Just watch.
My wife has been badgering me the whole year because I was vacillating about voting for Trump or a write-in. She is holding me to my promise of always voting for the least worst option, but always voting. I am now leaning to voting for Trump, but the idea of voting for this skunk makes me shudder.
How does anyone say this with a straight face?I would be proud to vote for you sir, but one correction......the loudmouth drunk at the end of the bar would make a better candidate than Trump. Which is what Trump resembles most.
Incredible credentials? He has the fewest credentials of literally any candidate ever nominated by a major political party in United States history. (Actually, yeah, if by "incredible," you mean its original meaning of "not credible," then yes, you could say his credentials are incredible.) He's never been elected to office or even served in a Cabinet. He's never served in the military or militia like other non-politician Presidents did. He has zero performance history to speak of, only a record of parlaying his pun-worthy last name and family connections into the appearance of billions of dollars in net worth, most locked in non-liquid real estate and notoriously difficult to measure "brand value."
Only in Cloud Cuckoo Land could anyone truly believe that Donald Trump is even close to the best we could do. Hell, I'd be a better President than Donald Trump if I were of legal age!
That is all they are going to be known for, classlessness. Just like their prince.
It's 1934 Germany folks. Just watch.
My wife has been badgering me the whole year because I was vacillating about voting for Trump or a write-in. She is holding me to my promise of always voting for the least worst option, but always voting. I am now leaning to voting for Trump, but the idea of voting for this skunk makes me shudder.
I don't see Trump throwing Jews and Christians in the slammer.
Hillary has said she would use the state to do just that, and Obama has been doing it. So, you are right, if Hillary wins, it will happen. Are you planning for that? Desiring that? What exactly is your take on wanting us to be just like 1934 Germany?
Most of us feel the same...but I will add that I detest him but it won't be the first time I've had to vote for a person I hate.
How classy of you to compare us to Nazi's
Are you going to tell this guy to knock it off Nancy. No you won't do that, will you? You'll ban Donald Trump supporters (A-lert among others), you'll suspend them for 24 hours when they respond to attacks (me).
But you wouldn't want to upset the Cruzers, now, would you?
Nah he just lets them rot there in deference to the liberal dems and gay lobby.
Does this mean that Trump is all of a sudden develop character?
He is a low life. If you want to throw your support to a low life because his opponent is even more of a low life that's your choice. I'm not drinking the kool aid. Whe a person of character and conservative values runs I'll support them. No more "lesser of two evils".
Bullies Win! Wimps Lose!
Bow and kiss the T-rump ring.
Exactly. And Republicans will not fight Trump. They would at least potentially fight Hillary. A traitor does more damage than an outside enemy, especially one in a position of authority who rules with an iron/abusive fist.
That is where I am. I am going to vote for the skunk. This year, as Cruz points out, is a very unique election year. So, skunk it is.
Give align a bit of a break...you may not have been here when certain members of the Nevertrump were at their worst. It was very bitter, and what we're seeing in this thread is a microcosm of the healing that's needed among both elements of the party (the Cruz and Trump groups). The truth is, we can never win without each other's support...and we should all be mindful of that moving forward.
Bullies Win! Wimps Lose!
Bow and kiss the T-rump ring.
Exactly. And Republicans will not fight Trump. They would at least potentially fight Hillary. A traitor does more damage than an outside enemy.
Setting aside the childish need to call others "pretend" conservatives...a demonstrably false assertion…
we are ALL responsible for what we do and do not do in this election. In that sense, you are right.
As for your assignment of responsibility to Trump voters....fair enough...as long as you acknowledge that a Hillary win's consequences are YOURS and yours alone in the same sense…
not belonging to the rest of us who DID support the GOP nominee.
In this kind of election, no choice gets to escape responsibility…and that applies to inaction and 3rd party voting as much as to active participation. You don't get to pull a Pontius Pilate because you "leave it others" to carry out the sentence.
Good post ... and good to see you @Mescalone :beer:
I would like to posit that this endorsement has come at a price for Orange Glorious...as referenced in Cruz' own statement....Trump published his COMPLETE list of potential Supreme Court nominees and stated unequivocally that he will ONLY choose from that list. I suspect THAT was the price of Cruz' endorsement.
If true, I would say well played.
So you guys are reduced to terms like "traitor" and using Nazi analogies. Are you surprised your arguments lack the ability to persuade...or even to make you seem like a "reasonable" opposition?
Ok, and what do you propose that he do? Be specific now, no arm waving and generalities.
This is what they degrade into. A bunch of them getting into a circle and doing who knows what... But reasonable discourse, certainly isn't it.
:thumbsup2:
I respect you Mesa, you're one of the bright and articulate ones, just like the major.
But I'm sick and tired of hearing, well "he's not as bad as Hillary." No no no. Donald Trump is and always has been far superior to Hillary and to the rest of the republican field. I recognized early on Donald Trump's incredible credentials and performance history preparing him for this job as president of the United States.
Donald Trump doesn't have to take a backseat to any of them.
Dont act like a Brownshirt and you won't have that problem.
Battle lines being defined. Bush comes out saying he will vote for Hillary Rodham. Cruz comes out with a vote for Trump.
This is the entrenched establishment vs. the rebel upstarts. Old blood against new blood. Time to choose a side like Ted did.
Are you for Trump? Or are you for Hillary? You can stand on the sidelines if you want to, but this is the decision everyone else is making.
It just occurred to me that the handful of posters doing the electric slide over Cruz's statement are the very same folks that declared him dead candidate walking while threatening to help primary him out in 2018 just a few short days ago.
Why such elation over what a loser globalist liar (and an ineffective senator to boot) says on Facebook?
Strange election, this one.
I disagree. It seems like it, but the turning point was probably 2012. Regardless of who wins obamacare will be replaced with a national healthcare program run under medicaid. Insurance companies will support this because they will keep their group plans and the more expensive individual plans will be laid off on the govt, just like what they did with Medicare and seniors.
If Trump wins the Pubs will fall in line and do whatever he wants even if it is the opposite of what they claim to believe in. If hillary wins they at least would gain some support from fighting her. The argument about the courts really is much ado about nothing. The SCOTUs has a majority of judges nominated by Pubs and it validated obamacare. They are no better than a bucket of warm spit.
Gee, with such big news today you think we'd be on page 800 by now. But, for some reason only crickets have shown up here in place of NeverTrump. Humph. Or, should that be, tRrump?
aligncare wrote above:
"No no no, this doesn't just end with the cult leader Cruz endorsing Trump. No, it's not that easy. It doesn't just stop with that.
The way you people HERE treated Trump supporters was nothing less than shameful and I won't soon forget that."
In complete agreement with aligncare's observations.
The ne'ertrumpers here have behaved deplorably (hehe) towards those who saw fit to support Trump from the beginning.
From this point on, I expect to see the whining ne'ertrumper choir to mute down a bit, with the exception of those who will now change their tune into an entirely new area in an attempt to convince us that they never were bound to Cruz in the first place, but to some ethereal concept called "principles". Or whatever.
In any case, Mr. Cruz saw the writin' on the wall.
And it advised him about his political future.
And... he acted accordingly, so that he might actually have one.
My wife has been badgering me the whole year because I was vacillating about voting for Trump or a write-in. She is holding me to my promise of always voting for the least worst option, but always voting. I am now leaning to voting for Trump, but the idea of voting for this skunk makes me shudder.
You as well, RIV. I needed a bit of a sabbatical. Re-energized and ready for the stretch run!
I agree that the turning point was in 2012.
But I believe to say that "If Trump wins the Pubs will fall in line and do whatever he wants even if it is the opposite of what they claim to believe in," is a prophetic statement that may not be true. It may also be true. But regardless, we KNOW what Hillary will do. This is why I am willing to take the risk with Trump, today.
And since you brought up SCOTUS, "if" we can believe the lists that Trump has given us, they look pretty darn good. And, yes, I said "if." I am wiling to take this risk. Again, because compare that list to what Hillary will bring to the SCOTUS, we know how bad that will be.
So, there is a risk with Trump. We don't know for sure what he will bring. But there is no risk with Hillary, we know exactly what she will bring - and I don't like it at all.
So, TRUMP for president!
Grace? Excuse me? Where were you while packs of Cruz supporters and assorted #NeverTrumpers ganged up on and ravaged with streams of vile insults the handful of Trump supporters here?
No no no, this doesn't just end with the cult leader Cruz endorsing Trump. No, it's not that easy. It doesn't just stop with that.
The way you people HERE treated Trump supporters was nothing less than shameful and I won't soon forget that.
If that were true he would have caved at the convention. They wore him down, yes. He made a huge mistake, yes. But in the end this will not serve him politically. So...your point is not valid. You fail as a mind and motive reader. Turn in your psychic friend badge.
Bullshiite. You vote for a demonstrably proven lifelong NYC liberal Democrat running as a pretend Conservative, you get a lifelong liberal Democrat for your monarch. Nothing false about that whatsoever.
More bullshite. Every single time a Constitutionalist pointed out the unconstitutional, unConservative policies and statements from Trump - the Mililtants went full tilt to massage and explain away Trump's proposed big government statism as 'truly Conservative' in convoluted twisted sets of pretzel logic that put Hildabeast's ridiculous stretches of truth to shame.
Horseshiite. I do not buy the pretense of the assignment. Neither Trump or Hillary are getting my vote or support, so I have absolutely no hand or responsibility in who *wins* or what they do once on the throne.
That belongs to those who actually cast a vote to put them there.
No. I refuse to belong to a mob of fascists disguising themselves as Conservative nationalist populists.
Thanks for illustrating exactly why it is that you Trump supporters and Hillary's Communists are absolutely no different at all in terms of statists and tyrants.
If you think you and yours will get to impose penalty for my 'responsibility' of not voting for your prince… I'll be waiting for you imbeciles to make that last mistake.
THAT I promise you.
This is just brain dead. Trump is an ignorant megalomaniac, with no principles, no morality, and no internal self-control. He has no business near any decision involving war or weapons.
Nor does he have any place near the economy. He's already shown he'll compromise on every single thing, including spending. He wants an entirely new entitlement, which will drive the US further into debt.
You support a mental patient.
I don't support him, and he might even be a mental patient, but right now I'd still pick him over the even worse option. Unfortunately that's the options I have.
Sure sounds like a mafia movie. "Nice career you got there. Hate ta see anything happen to it.."
And all he had to do is join the mob to keep it.
America! F' YEA!
Not.
aligncare wrote above:I'm curious... What do you and aligncare propose you'll do about all of those non believers who offended you during this campaign season? Do you think there'll be some kind of 'purge' following a Trump victory when you'll be able to punish the impertinent ones?
"No no no, this doesn't just end with the cult leader Cruz endorsing Trump. No, it's not that easy. It doesn't just stop with that.
The way you people HERE treated Trump supporters was nothing less than shameful and I won't soon forget that."
In complete agreement with aligncare's observations.
The ne'ertrumpers here have behaved deplorably (hehe) towards those who saw fit to support Trump from the beginning.
From this point on, I expect to see the whining ne'ertrumper choir to mute down a bit, with the exception of those who will now change their tune into an entirely new aria in an attempt to convince us that they never were bound to Cruz in the first place, but to some ethereal concept called "principles". Or whatever.
In any case, Mr. Cruz saw the writin' on the wall.
And it advised him about his political future.
And... he acted accordingly, so that he might actually have one.
How odd. Two days ago you told me how you didn't vote for Romney. You seem unmoored from consistency.
Both you and *cold one* need to knock it off....or you can both go back to FR where you continue to insult TBR.
Not strange at all. liberals just took their masks off.
LOL! And, of course Cruz and the Trumpkins believe him. The ink wasn't dry on the list and Mike Lee told Trump to stuff it.
There was no "price" to Cruz' endorsement. He only cares about his own political hide.
When a man is in the process of throwing away his dignity, even his wife and father are not safe.
Yup. They keep makin' offers they think we cannot refuse… and get bent out of shape when we do.
So now the threats are going to get hot and heavy because they think they just scored a huge wave of Conservatives to join their mob.
As I said elsewhere - we've seen this kind of mobbish nationalism before. 1934 Germany to be precise.
Because it's what my OPA keeps telling me happened in the old country when he was in his teens. He says it's the same damn thing. I'll take the word from someone who lived it over what some pointy-headed intellectual keeps attempting to deflect and assure that is not the case.
No, you have other options. you just won't exercize them.
Personally I think there is a lot more than meets the eye about this "endorsement".
Just this morning I noticed a lot of Trump supporters started praising Ted Cruz for being a fierce fighter to save the internet from Obama's giveaway. I'll just about guarantee the GOPe was threatening to let it happen if Cruz didn't say he was voting for Trump. If so, we'll find out about it in coming days or weeks.
I don't support him, and he might even be a mental patient, but right now I'd still pick him over the even worse option. Unfortunately that's the options I have.
I'm actually surprised all of the people cheering the endorsement of the multiple adulterer, zodiac killer, son of JFK assassin, Goldman Sachs moneyman..
Yes. Instead of running from the bear...or fighting back against it...Norm would have you curl up in a ball and wait to be eaten. But at least, following Norm's guidance, it won't be your responsibility or your fault.
And, so the analogy is clear to NT'rs....as they often struggle with such complexities...curling up in a ball is equivalent to voting 3rd party, or not voting.
There's never been a more pro-life Republican on the ticket than Mike Pence,
I'll vote for life.
Trump's been in the public eye for 40 years, they've got nothing on him, he's 70 now, he's a patriot, if you talk about how dangerous people are, the last Republican president gutted the party, helped destabilize a region where Christians are persecuted.
That's all scaremongering what you are saying, they said the same about JFK, Reagan and Goldwater.
Norm, get a grip. Times change.
i prefer my fantasy worlds in VR. You seem to like broadcasting yours in online forums. Good for you. we all need a hobby.
Ted's Southern Baptist, wow, I thought I read something about forgiveness. This criticism is unhinged; so he made one decision folks don't like.correction: he's a dominionist.
Now that I've gotten the preliminary I told you so's out of the way on the other thread, I'd like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Senator Cruz for getting over his hurt and for coming to his senses. He must've used that extra strength Preparation-H I sent him.Wow, your just as likable as your Lord Orange Julius. Cruz can do as he wishes, as for me, I will never vote for the Orange one, and don't believe that he will do one damn thing that he has promised and not already reneged on. I see him as the Arnold Schwarzenegger of 2016, he talks like a Republican but inside he's 100% demonrat!
And spare us the vague internet tough guy threats. You're being ridiculous. Nobody is "coming for you" so you can come up out of your bunker...though your paranoia is quite revealing.
Unfortunately, you're stuck with the responsibility of your choices whether you like that or not. Hillary wins...that's all you, baby.
Glad you approve. Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.
Setting aside the childish need to call others "pretend" conservatives...a demonstrably false assertion...we are ALL responsible for what we do and do not do in this election. In that sense, you are right.
As for your assignment of responsibility to Trump voters....fair enough...as long as you acknowledge that a Hillary win's consequences are YOURS and yours alone in the same sense...not belonging to the rest of us who DID support the GOP nominee. In this kind of election, no choice gets to escape responsibility...and that applies to inaction and 3rd party voting as much as to active participation. You don't get to pull a Pontius Pilate because you "leave it others" to carry out the sentence.
correction: he's a dominionist.
I learned that from you guys.
Yes. Instead of running from the bear...or fighting back against it...Norm would have you curl up in a ball and wait to be eaten. But at least, following Norm's guidance, it won't be your responsibility or your fault.
And, so the analogy is clear to NT'rs....as they often struggle with such complexities...curling up in a ball is equivalent to voting 3rd party, or not voting.
Grace? Excuse me? Where were you while packs of Cruz supporters and assorted #NeverTrumpers ganged up on and ravaged with streams of vile insults the handful of Trump supporters here?
No no no, this doesn't just end with the cult leader Cruz endorsing Trump. No, it's not that easy. It doesn't just stop with that.
The way you people HERE treated Trump supporters was nothing less than shameful and I won't soon forget that.
..
Well go ahead, go face the bear with a lifelong NY Liberal Democrat and see how well that works out for you.
Yeah that's the ticket...Cruz waited until he was sure Trump was gonna lose before endorsing him.
(http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=128681&d=1347063456)
Hillary's people have not threatened to kill me because I will not vote for her. Your fellow Trump militant fanatics have on various social media. In short, I view the Trump mob and Trump himself a more direct clear and present danger to my liberty than Hillary and her commie-hordes. Spare me, there's a million idiots (OK...millions) on the internet and they are reflected in the supporters of every candidate...I've been threatened many times by such morons, but I don't let fear of dimwits impact my daily life.
I take every threat I hear seriously. Only a clueless moron would ignore them. Or a disturbingly paranoid person.
Clear it up any for you? No, clear as mud...with a hint of psychotic mixed in.
What do you intend to do about it? I don't know...wanna arm wrestle?
I'm choosing Castle for the top spot. You want to make something of that? Yes, how's about we make a quilt together?
Or will you just continue to fling invective and claim we're Hillary supporters because we're casting a vote for Darrell Castle? I've never claimed you are a Hillary supporter, rather, I've claimed that you responsible if Hillary wins because you are not supporting the ONLY individual on the planet who can stop her. Very different from saying you're a Hillary supporter.
Put please, continue to illustrate yourselves as disdaining of our personal liberty as much if not moreso than the Liberal Marxists do. Again, have all the liberty you want. But liberty is not freedom from responsibility...on the contrary, it brings greater responsibility. If you knew that, things would become much clearer to you.
I'll vote for whom I damn well please, and as for 'responsibility of my choice' - I'm perfectly fine and good with it. Why build so many strawmen? No one has suggested you can't vote as you wish...what's questioned is the wisdom of voting as you are. I know you like to feel as if you are in a bunker, besieged by hordes of commies and Alinsky-ites...but its not your "rights" that are in question, but your intellect.
Well you DO support an amoral game show host, and a lot of us who are students of history think he's a proto-fascist. No, you don't want reconciliation and neither do I. I appreciate the dilemma Cruz finds himself in, and we all know how awful Clinton is going to be.
But Trump's a cancer, and I want him cut out.
Cruz's statement is very clear about taking Trump's word on the six issues he outlined.
I have not heard Trump be so unequivocal, but will take Cruz at his own word that he actually heard Trump or some other authorized person in the Trump campaign make him these promises.
It all goes into the hopper as I decide what I end up doing this November.
Hillary's people have not threatened to kill me because I will not vote for her. Your fellow Trump militant fanatics have on various social media. In short, I view the Trump mob and Trump himself a more direct clear and present danger to my liberty than Hillary and her commie-hordes.
I take every threat I hear seriously. Only a clueless moron would ignore them.
Clear it up any for you?
What do you intend to do about it?
I'm choosing Castle for the top spot. You want to make something of that?
Or will you just continue to fling invective and claim we're Hillary supporters because we're casting a vote for Darrell Castle?
Put please, continue to illustrate yourselves as disdaining of our personal liberty as much if not moreso than the Liberal Marxists do.
I'll vote for whom I damn well please, and as for 'responsibility of my choice' - I'm perfectly fine and good with it.
Trump will still lose but the simpletons won't be able to blame Ted Cruz for it.
Now that I've gotten the preliminary I told you so's out of the way on the other thread, I'd like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Senator Cruz for getting over his hurt and for coming to his senses. He must've used that extra strength Preparation-H I sent him.
More gibberish. More Bush hating. More bullshit.
Wow, getting kind of feisty aren't you? That usually means you lost!
I respect you Mesa, you're one of the bright and articulate ones, just like the major.
But I'm sick and tired of hearing, well "he's not as bad as Hillary." No no no. Donald Trump is and always has been far superior to Hillary and to the rest of the republican field. I recognized early on Donald Trump's incredible credentials and performance history preparing him for this job as president of the United States.
Donald Trump doesn't have to take a backseat to any of them.
You see this, right? This is what Trump and his supporters are like when a NeverTrump changes his mind---they're greeted with total contempt.
One more confirmation that NeverTrump is the right path to take.
hmmm, can I blame you that Trump loses and that you let Hillary win?Haven't you already said you won't be around to blame them?
I'm personally betting that Ted Cruz sacrificed for the greater good and I'm betting the GOP threatened to let Obama give the internet away if Cruz didn't support Trump. We already know what kind of bottom feeding scum they are from McConnell lying to the American people about Obamacare.
In the end, Trump will lose anyway but Ted Cruz won't get the blame for it.
I know you like to feel as if you are in a bunker, besieged by hordes of commies and Alinsky-ites
Trump will still lose but the simpletons won't be able to blame Ted Cruz for it.
I'm personally betting that Ted Cruz sacrificed for the greater good and I'm betting the GOP threatened to let Obama give the internet away if Cruz didn't support Trump. We already know what kind of bottom feeding scum they are from McConnell lying to the American people about Obamacare.
In the end, Trump will lose anyway but Ted Cruz won't get the blame for it.
Yeah, I think it's the opposite. I think he sees that the little tinpot might win, and dissidents don't flourish under fascism.
Mr Trump is calling for a society that is ethnically and racially neutral...color blind in a sense...in which individual merit is the only discriminator.
He wants to reduce taxation on corporations from 35 down to 15 percent...a huge reduction in governmental interference in the free market.
He has virtually nothing in common with any element in 1934 Germany...nor does our current economic, social, and political situation bear even a remote commonality with the Germany of that era.
Honestly, read a book.
It just occurred to me that the handful of posters doing the electric slide over Cruz's statement are the very same folks that declared him dead candidate walking while threatening to help primary him out in 2018 just a few short days ago.
Why such elation over what a loser globalist liar (and an ineffective senator to boot) says on Facebook?
Strange election, this one.
@Mesaclone @INVAR
That's utter bull$...
He questioned the impartiality of a judge based solely on his ethnicity. That's anything but "ethnically...color blind"!
It's actually rather insulting that you thought you could pass off such a obviously false claim so brazenly. I thought higher of you. Please tell me I'm mistaken that this was intentional.
Never 'think higher' of anyone that would empower a liberal. You'll only be disappointed. See them for what they are. Just another liberal with all the things that means.
In any case, Mr. Cruz saw the writin' on the wall.
And it advised him about his political future.
And... he acted accordingly, so that he might actually have one.
Damn, we've gone from Chicago values to NY values without skipping a beat, no matter who wins.
We need a border fence in Texas to keep foreign and domestic invaders at bay.
Well said...it'll be interesting to see exactly how much heck he catches from his own base for this.
My guess is less than some might think.
Damn, we've gone from Chicago values to NY values without skipping a beat, no matter who wins.
We need a border fence in Texas to keep foreign and domestic invaders at bay.
I thought The Great Wall of Texas Society was working for something like that. I can't recall if it was to save America from Texas, or to save Americans from Texans.
Ted Cruz announces endorsement of Donald Trump
(http://techgeek.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/thumbs-down.jpg)
The way you people HERE treated Trump supporters was nothing less than shameful and I won't soon forget that.
Well thats probably because of the Canadian endorsement Trump just got...i mean they told us Ted wasn't American and all...so clearly Trump is under the influence of a foreign agent!
And you are the one here bitchin' about butt hurt. You are a tool.
I understand why Cruz came out of the closet today. He's still a fine Senator for us, but it's not going to change my stance. Trump is still not displaying the leadership qualities of what I expect from my Commander in Chief. He's got 45 days +/- to change my mind.
And you are the one here bitchin' about butt hurt. You are a tool.
I wouldn't hold my breath. With the last conservative soul corrupted, the great god of the left will now stand unopposed. Not a single reason remains for him to accommodate anyone but fellow travelers. AKA Democrat Liberals.
As one of Cruz' biggest supporters even back to his senatorial primaries, words can not describe my disappointment in him abandoning his principles.
My respect for him dropped two notches tonight. And btw, I still will not vote for Trump or Hitlerly.
The real test for Cruz will be what he does when Trump's budgets are in the red with big deficits or what he does when Trump attempts to expand the size of the federal government.
It was easy for him to oppose BHO's overreach as he was from the opposing party
Now that I've gotten the preliminary I told you so's out of the way on the other thread, I'd like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Senator Cruz for getting over his hurt and for coming to his senses. He must've used that extra strength Preparation-H I sent him.
In the spirit of reconciliation, I offer this:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k07pirzBU34/StUpeCzWpfI/AAAAAAAACyU/p8JxVjB0hdc/s1600/DSC00545.jpg)
:silly:
I have been a huge supporter of Cruz's and I am thoroughly disappointed. IMHO... something or more likely someone got to Ted. I question what is truly going on ... the timing for one seems a bit odd to me. I would have thought if he were going to announce he was going to vote for him, he would have done so closer to the election instead of a month out and certainly, I would think he would have waited till after the first debate. IMHO Ted has made a huge mistake ... there is a strong possibility that Donny could make a total asz out of himself during the debate and even more likely that he will display his lack of knowledge on the issues, government and the Constitution.
On the other hand Since Cruz has fought several Supreme Court battles (Heller v. DC etc.) and won, I think Scalia's vacancy may have weighed heavily on him and the fact that at least one other additional justice will probably be appointed. Cruz stated; "We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices 'in the mold of Scalia'".
Cruz unfortunately, is taking him at his word.
..."Cruz also praised Trump for releasing an updated list of potential Supreme Court nominees that includes Sen. Mike Lee. Cruz said he had sought "greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/23/cruz-says-will-vote-for-trump.html
Let's take a hand count.
How many here are moving to Belize?
Let's take a hand count.
How many here are moving to Belize?
oh HELL no. I want to be here front and center to watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the useful idiots get frogmarched to the wall.
I'm skeptical of Trump's claim he will appoint justices in the "mold of Scalia." That's alot of blind faith his backers have pinned their hopes on.
I won't lift a finger to help, but I will be watching to see Trump stab them in the back. That is inevitable. I may not be able to resist an "I told you so." But it won't make me happy.
Husband: Hi, honey. I'm home.
Wife: What did you do today, babe?
Husband: Endorsed the guy who called you ugly
So you are saying you do not want the votes you mock?
Understand... Ted did not endorse trump. He merely acknowledged that Scamwow has learned to sit and beg the Conservative vote, as such trump is a less vile option than Hillary.
I'm personally betting that Ted Cruz sacrificed for the greater good and I'm betting the GOP threatened to let Obama give the internet away if Cruz didn't support Trump. We already know what kind of bottom feeding scum they are from McConnell lying to the American people about Obamacare.
In the end, Trump will lose anyway but Ted Cruz won't get the blame for it.
A vote for someone is an endorsement. Period. Any disavowal is mealy-mouthed crap.
Without a doubt and I am sure that is why Cruz was certain to point it out...remember also, that it is the Senate that votes to approve the justice appointment. Cruz I am confident will do his best to hold his feet to the fire.
Really, everything hinges on IF the GOP can keep the majority in the Senate. If they keep the majority there is a chance that we will at least get a moderate justice(s). If they lose the majority ... it's curtains; it doesn't matter if Trump keeps his word or not ... a majority liberal Senate can make it extremely difficult for him and if Hillary makes it in ... a GOP majority can hopefully get her to place a moderate justice while a DEM majority will give us a liberal progressive justice.
@Cripplecreek
CC, you may be right. I'd like to think you are. But I'm just done.
They better enjoy the celebrating, though, because it's going to be fleeting.
And thats the one truth they will never be able to avoid, rewrite or make go away.
I agree that the turning point was in 2012.
But I believe to say that "If Trump wins the Pubs will fall in line and do whatever he wants even if it is the opposite of what they claim to believe in," is a prophetic statement that may not be true. It may also be true. But regardless, we KNOW what Hillary will do. This is why I am willing to take the risk with Trump, today.
Actually, Ted has a large grassroots organization. A large ground organization that trump lacks.
Politics is the art of what is possible.
That last SCOTUS list from Scamwow was an indication.. a real indication that trump is being harnessed.
Personally I am relieved that my "allies " are not Romney and Kasic( sorry Jazz).
It may serve him politically. Cruz still has a shot at the Presidency. He is young. Give him some more years. Rinse Publius put out the ultimatum, declare support for Trump or you will not get a shot in the future.
President Cruz sounds real good! Or Honorable Supreme Court Justice Cruz! Or even better, how about both??
Cruz is too good to just disappear. We need to make sure he gets our support!!
Actually you had better hope trump is what he plays to be. You had better hope he is alt-right. Then maybe he is a non-leftist fascist we can one off.
Neither Ted nor Mike Lee will be able to stop ScamWowo in the Senate anyways.
I agree. He blew it. His chance at the White House just became collateral damage in the battle between Trump and Cruz and all the differences they represent.
HAD! Ted HAD a large grassroots organization. I think he just lost it in battle with Trump.
Trump is not harness-able. He is a pathological liar. He holds true to nothing but his own self aggrandizement and wealth accumulation. The rest of it is always for sale to the highest bidder (those who will adore him and line his pockets).
@bilo
I dunno. People have pretty short memories. I can see Cruz viable later on. If he can get re-elected now.
No. This is a "no new taxes" moment. This one will not be forgotten. It cuts too deep.
Case in point: We got more conservative legislation under Bill Clinton than under George W. Bush. (Bush was the better Commander In Chief.)
Clinton: DOMA, Welfare Reform, better fiscal restraint overall (credit to Republican Congress willing to fight him).
Bush: Big increase in spending and federal power in education and medicare. Etc.
The separation of powers functions best when different parties hold different branches. I wish it were not so. Apparently at this point in history, it is so.
The problem with Trump in the executive is that Trump is a liberal. If the Republicans win control of Congress, he weakens them. if the Dems gain control, they join him. Constitutional conservatism loses either way. At least with a Hillary executive win and a Republican Congress there is a chance.
Well, I have not lost any respect for you. So...do what you think is right. For me, Trump is a fraud and all that you listed is just manipulation and phoniness. IMO.
Bottom line, I'll keep my trust in you, but I've lost a lot of trust in Ted. I have none to lose in Trump because I had none to begin with.
Just Victor wrote:
"Sore winners are pathetic."
But sore Cruzers are moreso !
Just Victor wrote:
"Sore winners are pathetic."
But sore Cruzers are moreso !
You see, what these newbees here don't get is that Trump supporters have put up with their insults and dog-pack attacks for 15 months.
Today was only day one of payback....
You see this, right? This is what Trump and his supporters are like when a NeverTrump changes his mind---they're greeted with total contempt.
One more confirmation that NeverTrump is the right path to take.
You see, what these newbees here don't get is that Trump supporters have put up with their insults and dog-pack attacks for 15 months.
Today was only day one of payback....
Better hope you brought a couple ampules of Testosterone there Dr. Schlock. You'll need to start shooting it up.
Well, I have not lost any respect for you. So...do what you think is right. For me, Trump is a fraud and all that you listed is just manipulation and phoniness. IMO.
Bottom line, I'll keep my trust in you, but I've lost a lot of trust in Ted. I have none to lose in Trump because I had none to begin with.
You see, what these newbees here don't get is that Trump supporters have put up with their insults and dog-pack attacks for 15 months.
Today was only day one of payback....
Now that I've gotten the preliminary I told you so's out of the way on the other thread, I'd like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Senator Cruz for getting over his hurt and for coming to his senses. He must've used that extra strength Preparation-H I sent him.
Well, Trump has done well.. did not take Christie/Kasic as VP. Uses Heritage Foundation to flesh out his "policies". Has learned to read a TelePrompTer... not at obama level.. but well enough... ;) not to give a speech like a fool.
This entire thread is confirmation that staying as far away from Trump and his bully crew and their ugly insults, is the right thing to do.
On election day, my conscience will be clear in NOT voting for either NY Leftist........ even the debauched, corrupt guy claiming to be a Republican.
I really do wish these TOS nasties would stay there with the other nasties where they belong.....
@CatherineofAragon
As one of Cruz' biggest supporters even back to his senatorial primaries, words can not describe my disappointment in him abandoning his principles.
My respect for him dropped two notches tonight. And btw, I still will not vote for Trump or Hitlerly.
Oh really....no matter what happens with this election there isn't going to be any *payback* here...I guarantee that!It's also worth noting that some of us on this side have been around here as long as they have! This never-Trump movement is not just the refugees here. In fact, many of us opposed Trump from the moment he was even mentioned.
@musiclady
Exactly right. It tickles me that they're salivating and waiting for us to "fall". They must think they need the last vote they can scrounge.
It feels great to be a NeverTrumper.
@Norm Lenhart
"Payback?" Seriously? From someone typing text on a message board?
How intimidating, lol.
This entire thread is confirmation that staying as far away from Trump and his bully crew and their ugly insults, is the right thing to do.
On election day, my conscience will be clear in NOT voting for either NY Leftist........ even the debauched, corrupt guy claiming to be a Republican.
I really do wish these TOS nasties would stay there with the other nasties where they belong.....
@CatherineofAragon
No class response. Figures
It's also worth noting that some of us on this side have been around here as long as they have! This never-Trump movement is not just the refugees here. In fact, many of us opposed Trump from the moment he was even mentioned.
Remember, Trump had the highest negatives of any potential candidate way back last spring, before he even confirmed he was in the race. Nothing has changed in regard to that. His lack of fitness was known beforehand.
@mystery-ak
As i said after I got here...They hate us for being here. We disrupted their safe space. Their anger isn't really about Trump and neverTrump. It's because someone let in 'lesser people' to their elitist club. Well, the club in their minds anyway. They hate us for being here and they resent the hell out of Myst not shitcanning every last one of us.
And thats why they test her good will every chance they get.
I quake in fear as this strong Nord keyboard warrior towers above me....
No really. i am just shaking...
Oh. Help. someone save me from laughing myself into convulsions!
Oh really....no matter what happens with this election there isn't going to be any *payback* here...I guarantee that!
A big mistake Trump zealots are making is in thinking that Cruz' caving will make Cruz supporters vote for Trump.:amen:
What they don't realize is that we are DIFFERENT from them because we believe in conservative ideals and principles, and unlike their ongoing lie, we are not bound to a man. We are not in love as they are.
I am no more inclined to vote for Trump today than I was yesterday or will be tomorrow.
He doesn't represent a single value I have. He is a degenerate human being, and completely corrupt.
The Trump cheerleading squad may be gloating tonight, but they are still just as wrong as they have ever been because they are cheerleading for a vulgar, corrupt, amoral leftist.
He will NEVER get my support.
But I love you for it.
As jmyrlefuller stated TBR was already divided before you all came over...and they have always resented me for not being a Trumper....
Maybe so. but SINCE we got here they haven't mellowed I'm sure. And we all see how often they dump on you. Which BTW, pisses a lot of us off to no end, over and above how pissed we get about the 'you support hillary!" idiocy they spew daily at us.
They arent gonna stop. they'll only get worse as Trump betrays them and adopts evermore liberal positions.
@Norm Lenhart
Look, you can joke all you want, but I for one find strongly worded text very chilling!
As jmyrlefuller stated TBR was already divided before you all came over...and they have always resented me for not being a Trumper....
This entire thread is confirmation that staying as far away from Trump and his bully crew and their ugly insults, is the right thing to do.
On election day, my conscience will be clear in NOT voting for either NY Leftist........ even the debauched, corrupt guy claiming to be a Republican.
I really do wish these TOS nasties would stay there with the other nasties where they belong.....
@CatherineofAragon
AZ is a castle doctrine state if they choose that route.
if it wants to have word wars, then it will find that it chose the wrong opponent rather quickly as well. So either way I don't worry about keyboard commandos.
Maybe so. but SINCE we got here they haven't mellowed I'm sure. And we all see how often they dump on you. Which BTW, pisses a lot of us off to no end, over and above how pissed we get about the 'you support hillary!" idiocy they spew daily at us.
They arent gonna stop. they'll only get worse as Trump betrays them and adopts evermore liberal positions.
I haven't read the replies to this thread but I did read Ted Cruz's reasons for his decision and I found them credible.
Trump has promised him a number of things, foremost is a list of conservative justices he would appoint and also to vote to end Obamacare and to stop the fight against the gas industry.
We know that Trump can't be counted on to keep those promises and I'm sure Cruz knows that also but he also knows that Hillary will definitely appoint liberal justices ... destroying the court.
I've always said I had respect for trump voters who see him for what he is but think Hillary would be worse.
@Norm Lenhart
I don't have a history of allowing myself to be intimidated IRL, so I know damn well a bunch of Trumpists on a forum aren't going to make it.
@Norm Lenhart
I don't have a history of allowing myself to be intimidated IRL, so I know damn well a bunch of Trumpists on a forum aren't going to make it.
Today was only day one of payback....
@mystery-ak
It ought to be enough that you say you will likely vote for him, but it isn't. Nothing less than pure adulation before Trump will do.
Omarosa, Trump's "director of African-American outreach":
“Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump. It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe."
His fans want to see him worshiped because they think he deserves it. They, and he, can kiss my rear.
Maybe they won't...but I feel TBR will find it's direction after the election...and with all our help we will all deal with it.
The sad thing is if Trump adopts even more liberal positions I feel they will still follow and condone his actions and give up whatever is left of their conservative ideals.....I am holding on to mine no matter what and TBR will remain conservative....no matter who is elected we will scrutinize the president and everything he/she does.....
That upsets them more than about anything. They know that ultimately we arent intimidated and think they are pond scum. No amount of throwing themselves on the floor, kicking and screaming will ever change that. They always got their way. And now, for the first time, probably in their spoiled lives, they had the word 'No' enforced on them.Let 'em hold their breath until they turn blue. I'll listen for the thump. :thud: :silly:
And they don't know how to handle it.
@mystery-ak
It ought to be enough that you say you will likely vote for him, but it isn't. Nothing less than pure adulation before Trump will do.
Omarosa, Trump's "director of African-American outreach":
“Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump. It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe."
His fans want to see him worshiped because they think he deserves it. They, and he, can kiss my rear.
Let 'em hold their breath until they turn blue. I'll listen for the thump. :thud: :silly:
I'm still not voting for either New York Liberal. The die is cast.
Maybe they won't...but I feel TBR will find it's direction after the election...and with all our help we will all deal with it.
The sad thing is if Trump adopts even more liberal positions I feel they will still follow and condone his actions and give up whatever is left of their conservative ideals.....I am holding on to mine no matter what and TBR will remain conservative....no matter who is elected we will scrutinize the president and everything he/she does.....
Maybe they won't...but I feel TBR will find it's direction after the election...and with all our help we will all deal with it.
The sad thing is if Trump adopts even more liberal positions I feel they will still follow and condone his actions and give up whatever is left of their conservative ideals.....I am holding on to mine no matter what and TBR will remain conservative....no matter who is elected we will scrutinize the president and everything he/she does.....
There have been enough Amens, angels, and devils on this thread to almost make me religious. Almost. heh heh heh
Than most all of us. Which is why the attacks on her are so appalling. She has been gracious to all of us equally. She has weathered insults and scheming and returned kindness and accommodation.
I haven't read the replies to this thread but I did read Ted Cruz's reasons for his decision and I found them credible.
Trump has promised him a number of things, foremost is a list of conservative justices he would appoint and also to vote to end Obamacare and to stop the fight against the gas industry.
We know that Trump can't be counted on to keep those promises and I'm sure Cruz knows that also but he also knows that Hillary will definitely appoint liberal justices ... destroying the court.
I've always said I had respect for trump voters who see him for what he is but think Hillary would be worse.
That upsets them more than about anything. They know that ultimately we arent intimidated and think they are pond scum. No amount of throwing themselves on the floor, kicking and screaming will ever change that. They always got their way. And now, for the first time, probably in their spoiled lives, they had the word 'No' enforced on them.
And they don't know how to handle it.
My hope is Cruz got some concessions/assurances from Trump for his endorsement. While I will not support Trump or work to get him elected, in the end I will vote for him. The alternative is just too horrible. At least Trump has a small chance of doing the right thing. Hillary has no chance to do the right thing.
Well I do have a lot of patience and as an owner I think one should have....but I have to give credit to my MODS who keep me balanced....you should see the MOD room where I scream my head off...lol...they calm me down..and then I'm good for another day or two..lol...We have the best MODS on this forum!!!!
Cruz's statement is very clear about taking Trump's word on the six issues he outlined.
I have not heard Trump be so unequivocal, but will take Cruz at his own word that he actually heard Trump or some other authorized person in the Trump campaign make him these promises.
It all goes into the hopper as I decide what I end up doing this November.
Also, Norm...and in that vein...note that Cruz is an object of contempt for them now that he's given in. Before, they hated him....now they look down on him.
That's what caving gets you.
Also, Norm...and in that vein...note that Cruz is an object of contempt for them now that he's given in. Before, they hated him....now they look down on him.
That's what caving gets you.
(*) Trump Realist (?) Trump believer (?) Never Trump, Which are you ?
I'm glad. I thank them. Hey, in times like these we all have to lose our cool from time to time. I certainly do.
Maybe they won't...but I feel TBR will find it's direction after the election...and with all our help we will all deal with it.
The sad thing is if Trump adopts even more liberal positions I feel they will still follow and condone his actions and give up whatever is left of their conservative ideals.....I am holding on to mine no matter what and TBR will remain conservative....no matter who is elected we will scrutinize the president and everything he/she does.....
Trump will still lose but the simpletons won't be able to blame Ted Cruz for it.
Well if you wanna worship at my statue I won't mind. @CatherineofAragon is having it built in DC. You might need a SpaceX ticket to see it by now though because every time I make an accurate prediction, another 10 feet is added.
/modesty/humility :beer:
You see this, right? This is what Trump and his supporters are like when a NeverTrump changes his mind---they're greeted with total contempt.
One more confirmation that NeverTrump is the right path to take.
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon
I just wrote the below on the second thread I saw about Cruz/Trump. I have been doing other things today and just got here to see what is going on. I don't yet know on this thread about someone or some ones giving mystery a hard time. She has nothing to do with this Cruz/Trump announcement, so I don't know why anyone would have a problem with her.
All you people need to take a calm pill. Here is what I just wrote on another thread (I changed "second" to "third".
This is the third thread I see on here about Cruz endorsing Trump and there may be others. Cruz chooses for whom he will vote and I determine for whom I will vote. I won't vote for either presidential candidate and I care not for whom others vote, including Cruz. There is no reason to argue about this and I read one member after another on this board attacking each other just because Cruz announced he will vote for Trump and why he is doing it.
I don't get this angry fighting back and forth on here. There is no purpose to it. You vote for whomever you want, or don't vote for either, and that is that. I won't see it if the agitating Trumpers post to me as they are on Ignore and that is super fine with me. Posting facts is one thing, but snipping at each other for voting for "x" or not voting, is ridiculous. Perhaps writing angry messages to each other, calling people names, is a "high" for some people and they enjoy it. Sitting with a drink and tapping on the computer keys does not make one a knight with a sword.
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon
My experience was the opposite.
And yes you have good/great Mods... you however... need some composure. :smokin:
Odd how some of these Trump supporters act like the worst of the worst leftie trolls you've ever come across on the net, eh? They sound so familiar in that respect. Oh wait......
Trumpocrats.
Odd how some of these Trump supporters act like the worst of the worst leftie trolls you've ever come across on the net, eh? They sound so familiar in that respect. Oh wait......
Trumpocrats.
My experience was the opposite.
And yes you have good/great Mods... you however... need some composure. :smokin:
@Norm Lenhart
You said you didn't want that thing after all, so I had it torn down and melted into gold teeth. Didn't I tell you?
I think Snoop Dogg is flaunting a part of it.
oh HELL no. I want to be here front and center to watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the useful idiots get frogmarched to the wall.
I'm holding out hope for unity because our country desperately needs it.
============================
Join your friend in Belize. It beats a frog march to the wall.
Beachfront Property in Belize - International living (https://internationalliving.com/countries/belize/beachfront/)
Maybe they won't...but I feel TBR will find it's direction after the election...and with all our help we will all deal with it.
The sad thing is if Trump adopts even more liberal positions I feel they will still follow and condone his actions and give up whatever is left of their conservative ideals.....I am holding on to mine no matter what and TBR will remain conservative....no matter who is elected we will scrutinize the president and everything he/she does.....
More like Capitalists vs. Communists.
(http://67.media.tumblr.com/db11689bb010601ac0f8f786ca3de6ef/tumblr_o5h8h9xsHG1slqt1mo1_1280.jpg)
:beer: It is a depressing election cycle, but it helps to have like-minded friends.
:hands: :hands: :hands:
No, sorry. I would rather watch you all endure the consequence of your actions. We principled types can use it to teach our children about life under the fascism you brought us so hopefully they can avoid making your mistakes.
Edit. Hopefully so that they can someday free themselves from the hell you consigned them to living under.
=========================
Can I get you crayons to color your picture? I'll put it on the refrigerator when it's done.
(clears throat)
Proper planning Catherine. Proper planning. The world needs me now more than ever. They can gaze upon my golden visage....or they can gaze on an orange guy on a gold toilet talking about making his bowel movements great again.
So, when can I expect construction to be completed?
Oh and the comment about planning (forgot about that)...Plan for a sammich before you return to doing God's work. Just know that as you labor, your efforts will bring unmitigated misery to Trump zealots everywhere and likely cause HiTeK to suffer a stroke.
/Humble symbol of hope for humanity
(ducks iron skillet)
No class response. Figures
Your mob of Trump militants; their behavior (just today no less) and the declarations that 'everyone will bow to Trump' from campaign staff has rendered the idea of unity an impossibility.
I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than unify with the likes of the Trump mob.
They have proven themselves anathema to everything I hold dear that they pay lip service to.
OMG. You've come down with a case of the clap.
I think I'll take comfort in the fact that I just scored a blow off your skull. Here's your sammich *CLANG*
You can stand on the sidelines if you want toSounds good.
Maybe they won't...but I feel TBR will find it's direction after the election...and with all our help we will all deal with it.I just hope that this doesn't lead to a full-out split.
The sad thing is if Trump adopts even more liberal positions I feel they will still follow and condone his actions and give up whatever is left of their conservative ideals.....I am holding on to mine no matter what and TBR will remain conservative....no matter who is elected we will scrutinize the president and everything he/she does.....
Uh....
scuse me?
That's not clap. It's applause. Learn the difference. :tongue2:
I just hope that this doesn't lead to a full-out split.
I know ever since the first FR purge in 2008, there've been a cluster of us folk, many of whom migrated from board to board. I know this very board was the result of a split between the owners of a previous site that has now faded into the past. With R4 on one side and you on the other, that could very well become a reality.
The people here have been making a great effort to build this site into something prominent. I would hate to see it go to waste.
I'll disagree with your assessment that Hillary is less effective...her complete lack of scruples make her far more dangerous than Obama IMHO.
I love applesause. With a pinch of cinnamon. You wanna borrow my spelchkr?
Gosh. Obama was the rat candidate with scruples...who knew? :shrug:
=========================
Did my kitty's say something to offend? Or, does his mere presence engender alarm? But, how could that be? He's such a friendly kitty.
Could it be that some folks here are beginning to smell the coffee. Could it also be the realization that your NeverTrump fantasies are about to go bust?
Could it be we're feeling a little cranky today?
Ohhhhh welllllll. I GUESS you prefer golden toilets with Trump on them.
First Ted, now you... Will the betrayal never end??????
Oh the huge manatee! ;)
......You can stand on the sidelines if you want to, but this is the decision everyone else is making.
Gee, with such big news today you think we'd be on page 800 by now. But, for some reason only crickets have shown up here in place of NeverTrump. Humph. Or, should that be, tRrump?I got a job buddy. Somebody has to pay for the Disability, Unemployment and Social Security patriots of America.
Posting logic and reason is probably a waste of time tonight @HAPPY2BME.
Let them have the time to digest the reality that, after prayer and contemplation, Ted Cruz's conscience tells him to vote for Donald Trump.
Giving them this time is the kindest thing we can do for our fellow members.
Only in Cloud Cuckoo Land could anyone truly believe that Donald Trump is even close to the best we could do. Hell, I'd be a better President than Donald Trump if I were of legal age!
My wife has been badgering me the whole year because I was vacillating about voting for Trump or a write-in. She is holding me to my promise of always voting for the least worst option, but always voting. I am now leaning to voting for Trump, but the idea of voting for this skunk makes me shudder.
It just occurred to me that the handful of posters doing the electric slide over Cruz's statement are the very same folks that declared him dead candidate walking while threatening to help primary him out in 2018 just a few short days ago.
Why such elation over what a loser globalist liar (and an ineffective senator to boot) says on Facebook?
Strange election, this one.
How odd. Two days ago you told me how you didn't vote for Romney. You seem unmoored from consistency.You just don't understand the deep Trumpian truths. Trump is both for and against all issues...so why can't Trump supporters skip a vote against Obama and still be deeply concerned about Hitlery expanding Obama's legacy. Your old fashioned conservative ideals mean nothing in this new dawn of Trump-speak. That why it is so important for you to vote for Trump, you America hating traitor! Be well!
I'm still holding out hope for unity in real life.
Maybe so. but SINCE we got here they haven't mellowed I'm sure. And we all see how often they dump on you. Which BTW, pisses a lot of us off to no end, over and above how pissed we get about the 'you support hillary!" idiocy they spew daily at us.
They arent gonna stop. they'll only get worse as Trump betrays them and adopts evermore liberal positions.[/b]
Isn't it interesting how every election the DNC devil gets bigger and bigger horns and it gets more important than ever to vote for whatever liberal the GOP runs, NO MATTER WHAT???The part I find interesting is that the "middle of the road" keeps getting redefined until it is somewhere on the left side of the port ditch.
Gee...It's like....magic!
I think your cat looks delicious. I'm smelling shredded kitty Sloppy Joes, and I'm feeling a little cranky because my blood sugar is low.
drool
Posting logic and reason is probably a waste of time tonight @HAPPY2BME.
Let them have the time to digest the reality that, after prayer and contemplation, Ted Cruz's conscience tells him to vote for Donald Trump.
Giving them this time is the kindest thing we can do for our fellow members.
There have been a fair number of news articles interviewing survivors of the WWII and the Holocaust during this election. Most of the interviews saw shades of Germany in Trump.
Grace? Excuse me? Where were you while packs of Cruz supporters and assorted #NeverTrumpers ganged up on and ravaged with streams of vile insults the handful of Trump supporters here?Vile insults? Nonononono, not even close. Never once did I cast dispersions on your ancestry, family relationships, eating habits, personal preferences, nor your relationships with livestock or the family pets. Not once. You have not been personally insulted.
No no no, this doesn't just end with the cult leader Cruz endorsing Trump. No, it's not that easy. It doesn't just stop with that.
The way you people HERE treated Trump supporters was nothing less than shameful and I won't soon forget that.
There's never been a more pro-life Republican on the ticket than Mike Pence,Oh cool! Does he hunt moose, too? (Oh, wait, that was someone else, nevermind)
I'll vote for life.
Trump's been in the public eye for 40 years, they've got nothing on him, he's 70 now, he's a patriot, if you talk about how dangerous people are, the last Republican president gutted the party, helped destabilize a region where Christians are persecuted.
That's all scaremongering what you are saying, they said the same about JFK, Reagan and Goldwater.
Thats whats left of your conscience looking for an escape route. Or just gas. Probably gas.Either that or their skin is on inside out...
Horseshiite again.(http://www.outdooroddities.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/grizzly_bear_warning_sign-500x373.jpg)
We're choosing weapons and tactics that you do not approve of to fight 'the bear'. Your weapons are known failures and probable failures in the face of a bear - but you keep insisting otherwise.
It's not in your prescribed manual of 'How To Survive In Politics' - but it's what will keep us alive with our liberty intact a hell of a lot longer than you.
Well go ahead, go face the bear with a lifelong NY Liberal Democrat and see how well that works out for you.
Wow, getting kind of feisty aren't you? That usually means you lost!No, actually, it means someone hasn't quit fighting yet.
Well thats probably because of the Canadian endorsement Trump just got...i mean they told us Ted wasn't American and all...so clearly Trump is under the influence of a foreign agent!Well, look no farther than his arm...The hand that
At the convention his promise specifically applied to Scalia's seat. Nothing about any others. Anyway he is, as Cruz said, a pathological liar. I do not trust him. Furthermore, it has thus far made no difference. We still lose the big issues. We need an Article V Convention of States to reassert state's rights, separation of powers and limited government.Actually, Cruz has gained two things. One, If Trump loses, he can't blame Cruz.
Ted just made a fool of himself. That is all.
A vote for someone is an endorsement. Period. Any disavowal is mealy-mouthed crap.Who Cruz votes for will be known only to him and Almighty God.
Vile insults? Nonononono, not even close. Never once did I cast dispersions on your ancestry, family relationships, eating habits, personal preferences, nor your relationships with livestock or the family pets. Not once. You have not been personally insulted.
:nono:
If you seem to harbor some sort of cognitive disconnect, I will kindly point that out, out of the goodness of my heart. I would hate to see such a stalwart conservative as yourself make an idiot of themselves, especially repeatedly, in a public forum.
HAD! Ted HAD a large grassroots organization. I think he just lost it in battle with Trump.Trump is deeply flawed. His integrity (if you want to use that word) is likely to be low enough to enable prosecution. Everyone in DC has the dirt on everyone else, and the idea of the loss of that wealth and aggrandizement, the humiliation involved, might well make Donny far less of a maverick than he claims. He will likely do what his handlers tell him.
Trump is not harness-able. He is a pathological liar. He holds true to nothing but his own self aggrandizement and wealth accumulation. The rest of it is always for sale to the highest bidder (those who will adore him and line his pockets).
You see, what these newbees here don't get is that Trump supporters have put up with their insults and dog-pack attacks for 15 months.Your litter box full again?
Today was only day one of payback....
As jmyrlefuller stated TBR was already divided before you all came over...and they have always resented me for not being a Trumper....:patriot: I, for one am thankful you are the way you are!
Maybe so. but SINCE we got here they haven't mellowed I'm sure. And we all see how often they dump on you. Which BTW, pisses a lot of us off to no end, over and above how pissed we get about the 'you support hillary!" idiocy they spew daily at us.All we have to do is stay up past their bed time... :silly:
They arent gonna stop. they'll only get worse as Trump betrays them and adopts evermore liberal positions.
:patriot: I, for one am thankful you are the way you are!
That's cuz I often later delete it. LOL.Not me. I cut and paste into a Word file. There are some good lines and turns of phrase in there, they just aren't fit for putting on the forum. :laugh:
============================What, the Alt-right is having a Pepe convention?
Join your friend in Belize. It beats a frog march to the wall.
Beachfront Property in Belize - International living (https://internationalliving.com/countries/belize/beachfront/)
All we have to do is stay up past their bed time... :silly:i;ll tell you what, You've seen my posts I;m sure talking about Trump turning on his useful idiots, but after having spent the last couple hours hitting both the hard left corners of the web and some generally center/left sites, hoooooo-boy.
The sTrumpet contingent doesn't realize that the Cruz decision is going to barely move the needle of support of us 9% Ultra-Conservatives who will not vote for a loud mouth NY liberal under any circumstance.That is the difference.
All we have to do is stay up past their bed time... :silly:
i;ll tell you what, You've seen my posts I;m sure talking about Trump turning on his useful idiots, but after having spent the last couple hours hitting both the hard left corners of the web and some generally center/left sites, hoooooo-boy.Turning on the useful idiots is just what what happened elsewhere, long ago.
i dunno if they will have to worry about it. the sheer hatred I have seen just randomly bouncing through some sites for the Alt-right is impressive. VERY few are happy about Hillary and all of them can't stand Trump but the most anger is being pointed squarely at his backers.
Palmer Luckey, the Occulus Rift 24 year old that sold it to Facebook for 2 billion just got caught cold funding alt right propaganda and fessed up and that led to quite a few fourms exploding with what they 'really' think. It's funny how real issues won't move millenials, but screw with their toys and look out!
All over Reddit the utter disgust for Alt righters is a sight to savor. They are gonna be in a whole new world you have companies already ramping up and publically stating they will 'disengage' from Luckey and Facebook software development and lots of comments about ditching any of their staff that are associated with the movement. Now granted, these are relatively small outfits but the thing is, the idea is now out in public.
The Trump idiots unleashed hell and it's spreading. There is no law to protect an employee over political association. And now you have companies refusing their business/employment.
you can guess how this is all gonna end.
I'm way past my bedtime. I started to read trump's book "Hyperbole--The best book ever written" but didn't get past the title before I passed out. Woke up a little bit later from the damn pain. Sitting here debating on another pill.You might have to read that book in smaller doses...
Turning on the useful idiots is just what what happened elsewhere, long ago.Palmer Freeman Luckey
The model is well defined, and it worked for a time. Of course, like so many other models, which worked for a time, but failed, it must be another case of not having the right people doing it, and maybe a lack of effort on their part--all problems which can inevitably be solved (again) by the more enthusiastic application of greater purity of concept, and, of course, having the right people doing it. :facepalm:
Schadenfreude season is just beginning. :2popcorn:
You might have to read that book in smaller doses...I
More seriously, you have my prayers that you can get that taken care of, and that it isn't so wicked in the meantime.
IGood night, Fred!
It is weird. I woke up with a bad toothache. Then it moved to the next. And so on and so on. I'm supposed to get that new script next Tuesday. They send it out in three 28 day packages. If it doesn't show signs of improvement after the first course they break it off. Ok, see you tomorrow.
Hannity: Time for all Republicans to get on board with Trumphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnhdBpoBKM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnhdBpoBKM)
or will Hillary's left eye spin like a fly trapped in a mason jar?:silly:
Actually, Cruz has gained two things. One, If Trump loses, he can't blame Cruz.
Two, Trump gave Cruz a specific list of people on his SCOTUS list. Seems like a condition, to me, and if Trump gets elected and deviates from that list, Cruz can oppose based on Trump's list and deviation from it.
There may be other behind the scenes concessions as well. This is not only not a gushing endorsement, but it bolsters Cruz's position as a power in the Senate.
In the instance Trump lied, Cruz can take him to task and the GOPe can't really say squat about it.
Well RCP has Clinton +3 today, I know partisans only believe a poll that favors their candidate but politicians, no matter what they say in public are poll driven and the RCP average is as close to their internal polling that the public gets. If Trump ever established a lead in the RCP I'd tend to believe he was leading.
Cruz is a politician first and foremost. If he thought Trump is and has been ahead he would have said he would vote weeks ago.
I won't vote for either and honestly I could care less who wins, the country will survive. I do try to base my observations on fact rather than the echo chamber that tends to develop so often on a political forum. It is my opinion that Cruz based his decision on polling showing Trump will lose. The fact is that the RCP average is usually right.
Hannity: Time for all Republicans to get on board with Trump
Time to name names:
Bill Kristol
Mitt Romney
Jeb Bush (George H. W. already publicly states he is voting for Hillary)
Susan Collins
Lindsey Graham
Ben Sasse
Meg Whitman
(many others)
If they continue to keep up their stupid games, while continuing to lick their wounds ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4mQT9xZVqM
Did it ever occur to you that showing a little grace would be more likely to persuade others to your side? Is it truly necessary to rub this in the faces of other people? Cruz made a tough decision because he thought it was for the good of the country. Is just a tiny bit of respect too much to ask?
Um...you HAVE to be confusing her with the other owner.
@Fantom
@mystery-ak
Oh, Lord, she's perfectly fine. She doesn't have to be a robot. Let her be real.
I'm pissed tonight, I have been all day, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
Oh good. LOL. I think you left her worried. The devil was a big hint that you were joking, but I was not sure.
@mystery-ak
:silly: Now wait just a minute. You were here last night when I was here and I only JUST got here this morning. And who do I see? YOU!!! LOL! The algorithm fantom. LOL.
Sure sure, that is what you all are programed to say. :whistle:I gotcher Algore Rhythm....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Df-YjO8W8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Df-YjO8W8) :silly: :silly:
LOL. Darn. You caught me.
Actually I am thinking about going back to sleep. Either that or I am going to need some coffee really soon. What I SHOULD do is go outside and weed.
I gotcher Algore Rhythm....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Df-YjO8W8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Df-YjO8W8) :silly: :silly:
Newsflash is that what appeared to be the only principled politician in the country isn't even that.
The ego and arrogance of the Trumpbots will never allow that thought to cross their mind. They are as crude and classless as their Orange God.
Posting logic and reason is probably a waste of time tonight @HAPPY2BME.
Let them have the time to digest the reality that, after prayer and contemplation, Ted Cruz's conscience tells him to vote for Donald Trump.
Giving them this time is the kindest thing we can do for our fellow members.
The part I find interesting is that the "middle of the road" keeps getting redefined until it is somewhere on the left side of the port ditch.
Every time the RATs shift left, the GOP follows. No thanks.
Actually, Cruz has gained two things. One, If Trump loses, he can't blame Cruz.
Two, Trump gave Cruz a specific list of people on his SCOTUS list. Seems like a condition, to me, and if Trump gets elected and deviates from that list, Cruz can oppose based on Trump's list and deviation from it.
There may be other behind the scenes concessions as well. This is not only not a gushing endorsement, but it bolsters Cruz's position as a power in the Senate.
In the instance Trump lied, Cruz can take him to task and the GOPe can't really say squat about it.
Hannity: Time for ‘Republican Crybabies’ to Stop Being ‘Stubborn’ and Support Trump
Hannity described the holdouts as “Republican crybabies” that were playing a “stubborn and stupid game.” He went on to call that effort “very disturbing and disgusting and dangerous.”
He continued, “By refusing to support Trump, seems they are supporting a woman who has proven time and time again she is a liar and corrupt politician. For example, just out today, newly released e-mails prove yet again that the State Department was, in fact, colluding with the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Hillary Clinton put the State Department up for sale with top aides pulling strings and doing favors for fat-cat donors to the Clinton Foundation, including a shady billionaire, including to smoking-gun e-mails released Tuesday. Wait, there’s more. Clinton continually lied about what she knew and when she knew it about the Benghazi terror attack. so much so that the parents of two Americans killed during that attack, they are now suing her for wrongful death and defamation.”
After a video clip of FBI Director James Comey He added, “Hillary Clinton, she’s proven she does not have the character, she does not have the temperament to be the president of the United States. So is that the person these Republican crybabies really want to be the next commander in chief, they want to help her? It’s very disturbing and disgusting and dangerous.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/08/11/hannity-time-for-republican-crybabies-to-stop-being-stubborn-and-support-trump/
It doesn't affect my vote at all.
Hannity: Time for all Republicans to get on board with Trump
Trump hooking up with the Karate Kid is just about as ridiculous as Cruz and Beck the loon...
Another shinning example of the best and the brightest :thud:
The sTrumpet contingent doesn't realize that the Cruz decision is going to barely move the needle of support of us 9% Ultra-Conservatives who will not vote for a loud mouth NY liberal under any circumstance.
@catfish1957
From what I'm seeing, it's having the opposite effect. Cruzers are doubling down on their disgust for Trump.
@CatherineofAragon been worried about you. Hope it's a better day for you . 888heartkitty
Both you and *cold one* need to knock it off....or you can both go back to FR where you continue to insult TBR.
Hannity: Time for all Republicans to get on board with Trump
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4mQT9xZVqM
Hannity: Time for all Republicans to get on board with Trump
If they continue to keep up their stupid games, while continuing to lick their wounds ..
What's Hannity going to do? Pull his Kung FU moves on us? Hannity is fox News mirror image of Chrissy Matthews at MSNBC. What a whimpy turd.
Tell me about it. It has been so hot my garden is a mess. And my weed eater has set idle too long. Alas, I am headed to work in the salt mines.
Here in Gods country..Oklahoma, it is promising to cool down this weekend.
I stayed away from this thread until this morning. I think others have said pretty much everything I am feeling.
To repeat myself. My vote is my own individual choice. I am grateful that is still so. The choices of others do not influence my choice. Neither major party has given us an acceptable candidate.
@Jazzhead
@INVAR
@Cripplecreek
@Catherine of Aragon
@skeeter
@jmyrlefuller
@Suppressed
@Night Hides Not
@Norm Lenhart
@catfish 1957
@Fantom
@sinkspur
@libertybele
@LMAO
@RAT Patrol .
@bigheadfred
@bilo
@musiclady
@Chosen Daughter
@Bigun
@mystery-ak
@mrpotatohead
@Emjay
@Victoria33
@Xena-Lee
@Sanguine
@Once-Ler
@txradioguy
Thankful for so many who chose to vote their conscious.
Boy, those nasty white people, I guess BLM protesters are right, they are the cause of all the trouble.
Just my opinion...
Take away a half-dozen of the above, as salvageable ....and it's exactly what I've pointed out.
No more than 1-1/2 to 2 dozen need to be shown the door in order to get The Briefing Room back on track.
Disagreements are nothing new...they are, in fact, encouraged, and further the debate.
But a lot of those pinged above are not worth a plug nickel.
If The Briefing Room is to return to being a respectable and credible political forum...they need to go.
The administration here knows it.....I know it....and if you're honest...anybody reading this knows it too!
Just my opinion...
Take away a half-dozen of the above, as salvageable ....and it's exactly what I've pointed out.
No more than 1-1/2 to 2 dozen need to be shown the door in order to get The Briefing Room back on track.
Disagreements are nothing new...they are, in fact, encouraged, and further the debate.
But a lot of those pinged above are not worth a plug nickel.
If The Briefing Room is to return to being a respectable and credible political forum...they need to go.
The administration here knows it.....I know it....and if you're honest...anybody reading this knows it too!
So you are saying that those disagreeing with you should be shown the door? How freeperish of you.
Just my opinion...
Take away a half-dozen of the above, as salvageable ....and it's exactly what I've pointed out.
No more than 1-1/2 to 2 dozen need to be shown the door in order to get The Briefing Room back on track.
Disagreements are nothing new...they are, in fact, encouraged, and further the debate.
But a lot of those pinged above are not worth a plug nickel.
If The Briefing Room is to return to being a respectable and credible political forum...they need to go.
The administration here knows it.....I know it....and if you're honest...anybody reading this knows it too!
If management follows your advise and conducts a pogrom then if I'm not on the list I'll leave voluntarily.
Just my opinion...
Take away a half-dozen of the above, as salvageable ....and it's exactly what I've pointed out.
No more than 1-1/2 to 2 dozen need to be shown the door in order to get The Briefing Room back on track.
Disagreements are nothing new...they are, in fact, encouraged, and further the debate.
But a lot of those pinged above are not worth a plug nickel.
If The Briefing Room is to return to being a respectable and credible political forum...they need to go.
The administration here knows it.....I know it....and if you're honest...anybody reading this knows it too!
It is just your opinion...it is not up to you to decide who comes or who goes...if you want to do that you can start your own forum.
http://www.simplemachines.org/
So you are saying that those disagreeing with you should be shown the door? How freeperish of you.
If The Briefing Room is to return to being a respectable and credible political forum...they need to go.
That will never happen....I don't do things like that.
No disrespect, Nancy.
Do you care to explain why you've banned Salvatore, then?
Last Active:
Today at 10:46:11 AM
@DCPatriot
(http://i63.tinypic.com/5osbgl.jpg)
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
The fact of the matter is Cruz never had the appeal to defeat an average Democrat candidate in a nationwide election.
Yes. That's exactly what he's saying.
Funny thing is, I don't think a single person on that list wants to have him banned, just because he disagrees with us.
That's the fundamental difference between the Trump zealots and the rest of us who value freedom.
We don't want to silence dissent as they do. We don't think that our views should be the only ones permitted on this forum. We believe in free speech. We believe in the freedom of ideas and ideals.
I'm not sure how the chicken-egg thing works with the Trumpists. Did they not value freedom and thus were attracted to Trump, or did their attraction to Trump destroy their own values?
I don't think we'll ever know, but the thing we know for sure is that the Trump faithful want to shut the rest of us up.
I, for one, am PROUD to be on the list that values Conservatism and liberty. Being a target for this nasty group is sort of a red badge of courage for all of us.
The ones whom DC wants to banish from this forum are the ones I am honored to stand alongside.
@ConstitutionRose
:beer:
Just my opinion...
Take away a half-dozen of the above, as salvageable ....and it's exactly what I've pointed out.
No more than 1-1/2 to 2 dozen need to be shown the door in order to get The Briefing Room back on track.
Disagreements are nothing new...they are, in fact, encouraged, and further the debate.
But a lot of those pinged above are not worth a plug nickel.
If The Briefing Room is to return to being a respectable and credible political forum...they need to go.
The administration here knows it.....I know it....and if you're honest...anybody reading this knows it too!
What are you talking about...he isn't banned
I get sick of the crap that this place isn't FAIR to them (what an infantile complaint), and at the same time they're calling for BANNING of people who don't agree with them.There is a band here that get their marching orders from the Freeper Mothership, and try to make TBR a subset of the FR cesspool. Thanks to Myst, they haven't gotten much traction.
On a political forum?? I know that dreaded word "fascism" is questioned, but what else is it when you want to shut down any opposition to your idol?
These are scary times when people who claimed to be conservative have gone so far off the deep end.
I will protest the debauched, degenerate, corrupt leftist, Donald Trump until his goons throw me in jail, if it comes to that. I will not buckle under idiotic bullying from anyone. EVER.
I get sick of the crap that this place isn't FAIR to them (what an infantile complaint), and at the same time they're calling for BANNING of people who don't agree with them.
On a political forum?? I know that dreaded word "fascism" is questioned, but what else is it when you want to shut down any opposition to your idol?
These are scary times when people who claimed to be conservative have gone so far off the deep end.
I will protest the debauched, degenerate, corrupt leftist, Donald Trump until his goons throw me in jail, if it comes to that. I will not buckle under idiotic bullying from anyone. EVER.
I stayed away from this thread until this morning. I think others have said pretty much everything I am feeling.
To repeat myself. My vote is my own individual choice. I am grateful that is still so. The choices of others do not influence my choice. Neither major party has given us an acceptable candidate.
@Jazzhead
@INVAR
@Cripplecreek
@Catherine of Aragon
@skeeter
@jmyrlefuller
@Suppressed
@Night Hides Not
@Norm Lenhart
@catfish 1957
@Fantom
@sinkspur
@libertybele
@LMAO
@RAT Patrol .
@bigheadfred
@bilo
@musiclady
@Chosen Daughter
@Bigun
@mystery-ak
@mrpotatohead
@Emjay
@Victoria33
@Xena-Lee
@Sanguine
@Once-Ler
@txradioguy
Thankful for so many who chose to vote their conscious.
There is a band here that get their marching orders from the Freeper Mothership, and try to make TBR a subset of the FR cesspool. Thanks to Myst, they haven't gotten much traction.
What are you talking about...he isn't banned
Then, there's something sinister going on here.
When certain Trump supporters view the forum as "guests", the site is lightening fast....the way it's supposed to be.
However, when said Trump supporters....myself included...log on, it takes literally more than a minute for any page to load.
IOW, it can't be the IP address...because in guest mode it works the way it's supposed to.
So tell us....has a certain backroom adversary whose name begins with "O" been manipulating said accounts? Has he enabled something that repeatedly churns...if that's the correct term....making using the forum a very unpleasant experience?
Because I know damned full well not everybody can be experiencing this...otherwise you'd have a riot on your hands.
Pray tell? :shrug:
Then, there's something sinister going on here.
When certain Trump supporters view the forum as "guests", the site is lightening fast....the way it's supposed to be.
However, when said Trump supporters....myself included...log on, it takes literally more than a minute for any page to load.
IOW, it can't be the IP address...because in guest mode it works the way it's supposed to.
So tell us....has a certain backroom adversary whose name begins with "O" been manipulating said accounts? Has he enabled something that repeatedly churns...if that's the correct term....making using the forum a very unpleasant experience?
Because I know damned full well not everybody can be experiencing this...otherwise you'd have a riot on your hands.
Pray tell? :shrug:
Just my opinion...
Take away a half-dozen of the above, as salvageable ....and it's exactly what I've pointed out.
No more than 1-1/2 to 2 dozen need to be shown the door in order to get The Briefing Room back on track.
Disagreements are nothing new...they are, in fact, encouraged, and further the debate.
But a lot of those pinged above are not worth a plug nickel.
If The Briefing Room is to return to being a respectable and credible political forum...they need to go.
The administration here knows it.....I know it....and if you're honest...anybody reading this knows it too!
The biggest joke is that he pretends to welcome debate. HA!!! Dissent not allowed by that crowd. The Cruz endorsement is evidence. They (the general "they," but it includes people like the poster you quoted) bullied him into submission. Shame on him for succumbing. But first, shame on them.
I never insist that anyone be silenced or banned; I figure that my positions speak for themselves to the observers viewing the discussion. That's pretty much unlike the actions of those on the other side, who regularly call for anyone who doesn't follow their line to be silenced. Just know folks, it ain't gonna happen. I will not be silenced. I may be banned sometime, but I will insist on my right to speak.
We're re-opening the thread, so PLAY NICE! First person who demands a banning gets a taste of his/her/its own medicine, Kapish?
============================
This is the best place in the world to study the mind of neocons.
Great place!
Oh I was not referring to you. Your post was great. You were not the one quoted in the post I responded to. I have that person on ignore, so I was just responding to Bigun's use of the quote.
Speak away. Do not be silenced. I've never seen you try to intimidate and insult someone into submission.
I never insist that anyone be silenced or banned; I figure that my positions speak for themselves to the observers viewing the discussion. That's pretty much unlike the actions of those on the other side, who regularly call for anyone who doesn't follow their line to be silenced. Just know folks, it ain't gonna happen. I will not be silenced. I may be banned sometime, but I will insist on my right to speak.
Then, there's something sinister going on here.
When certain Trump supporters view the forum as "guests", the site is lightening fast....the way it's supposed to be.
However, when said Trump supporters....myself included...log on, it takes literally more than a minute for any page to load.
IOW, it can't be the IP address...because in guest mode it works the way it's supposed to.
So tell us....has a certain backroom adversary whose name begins with "O" been manipulating said accounts? Has he enabled something that repeatedly churns...if that's the correct term....making using the forum a very unpleasant experience?
Because I know damned full well not everybody can be experiencing this...otherwise you'd have a riot on your hands.
Pray tell? :shrug:
:amen: Trump supporters are indeed fertile grist for that mill!
============================
This is the best place in the world to study the mind of neocons.
Great place!
Editorial/Opinion (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/board,11.0.html) / Bless their Cold War hearts Why the neocons don’t like Donald Trump (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,226452.msg1065655.html#msg1065655)
I still think he made the wrong decision. He sided with people who hate him and betrayed people who have defended him for months.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/sc6sg2.jpg)
Great to see you still spewing your Jew hating garbage.
Back to topic...
I think Cruz was painted into a corner. No matter what he said or did (or didn't say or do), he was going to get a ration of crap over it. Sometimes one has to take a step back and decide what's best for the country, and I think that's what Cruz did. Even if it means making up after the deeply personal attacks from Trump.
He knows that if, by some miracle, Trump wins this, the two need each other to get the things done that the country needs. Without Trump, Cruz gets nothing. Without Cruz, Trump gets nothing. Nobody wants a lose-lose deal, but that's what we all get if everybody remains dug in and sandbagged.
My vote remains a matter of my own conscience, just as it has for the 40 or so years I've been casting votes for politicians. Cruz' statement doesn't change that one iota for me, and I don't think it does for anybody else here.
Back to topic...
I think Cruz was painted into a corner.
As far as I know, second place finishers in presidential primaries usually, traditionally endorse the party's nominee.
He may be late, but he arrived finally. Ted Cruz had to do this for party unity and for the sake of his career.
I wouldn't read too much into it.
I hear ya, @Cyber Liberty , but I think this cigar is really just a cigar. I think he sees the much, much greater threat that Hilary presents and he's going to vote for Trump as the better option, however slight the difference is.
This site has been VERY troublesome for me lately. So if there is a sinister plot, I am on the bad list. 8888crybaby :silly:
@montanajoe
Remember every time there was server trouble at TOS? It was always some kind of sinister attack. :thud:
Yep I do, as I recall it usually happened when the begathons stalled but you are right there was a connection ... :tinfoil:
As far as I know, second place finishers in presidential primaries usually, traditionally endorse the party's nominee.
He may be late, but he arrived finally. Ted Cruz had to do this for party unity and for the sake of his career.
I wouldn't read too much into it.
@montanajoe
Remember every time there was server trouble at TOS? It was always some kind of sinister attack. :thud:
Help me out, @Frank Cannon ...how was that "Jew hating garbage?" Am I missing some context? My curiosity is genuine. I know the term "Neocon" is a dirty word for many, is that it?
As far as I know, second place finishers in presidential primaries usually, traditionally endorse the party's nominee.Congratulations! You are the very first person I've added to my "ignore" list. DC Patriot was 2nd.
He may be late, but he arrived finally. Ted Cruz had to do this for party unity and for the sake of his career.
I wouldn't read too much into it.
Neocon is a pejorative term towards Conservative Jews. The Stormfront wing of the Trumpettes love to use it liberally to show their contempt for people of a certain religious background and I hate that with a passion.
And you know darn well that is the precise reason that particular poster spammed it here.
The contempt for Conservative Jews is palpable with some of these Trump zealots.
The racism is very thinly veiled in some of these Trump lovers.
Exactly, and I am not going to condone or accept it anymore.
Neocon is a pejorative term towards Conservative Jews. The Stormfront wing of the Trumpettes love to use it liberally to show their contempt for people of a certain religious background and I hate that with a passion.
This might surprise some, but I have come to appreciate conservative Jews in politics more than many conservative Christians. That is not a religious statement (Jesus is Lord and I will never waiver from that). BUT, Jews do not get all muddled up in this mushy emotional "we are saving the gospel" abuse that renders them unable to speak the truth about anything else. Don't get me wrong. The gospel is the priceless pearl, the most precious gift, the treasure worth more than anything else in the world. But truth is never the enemy of the gospel. Those who make themselves enemies of God-given unalienable truths are making themselves enemies. I'm not doing it to them.
Ah...got it! I've always though of "neocon" as being a bit of a slippery, poorly defined word, but I also knew eventually a unified definition of what it means would prevail. Apparently it has been weaponized?
Ah...got it! I've always though of "neocon" as being a bit of a slippery, poorly defined word, but I also knew eventually a unified definition of what it means would prevail. Apparently it has been weaponized?
Neocon is a term that the worst of the worst leftist trolls I've seen on the net have used to slander anyone on the right with. That someone is HERE, using it against one or any of us, is telling. For who and what that person really is, that is.
Yes. Weaponized by bigots pretending to be Conservative. Observe its use here on this forum, or any others where Trump nationalists post. You'll see it quite clearly. A "neocon" is a dirty Jew, and often reflects a white sheet mentality.
Neocon is a term that the worst of the worst leftist trolls I've seen on the net have used to slander anyone on the right with. That someone is HERE, using it against one or any of us, is telling. For who and what that person really is, that is.
Then, there's something sinister going on here.
When certain Trump supporters view the forum as "guests", the site is lightening fast....the way it's supposed to be.
However, when said Trump supporters....myself included...log on, it takes literally more than a minute for any page to load.
IOW, it can't be the IP address...because in guest mode it works the way it's supposed to.
So tell us....has a certain backroom adversary whose name begins with "O" been manipulating said accounts? Has he enabled something that repeatedly churns...if that's the correct term....making using the forum a very unpleasant experience?
Because I know damned full well not everybody can be experiencing this...otherwise you'd have a riot on your hands.
Pray tell? :shrug:
Hmmn, I thought "NeoCon" was a group of big government, world cop type like the Bushes.
Hmmn, I thought "NeoCon" was a group of big government, world cop type like the Bushes. First I've ever heard of it being used to denote a Jew.
On the other hand it could be a Convention of Neo's. Lots of people running around saying.."I am the one".
As for the slow server, add me too the list of those experiancing such. I just thought it was because I did not brush my teeth this 'Mornin'. :shrug:
============================
This is the best place in the world to study the mind of neocons.
Great place!
Editorial/Opinion (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/board,11.0.html) / Bless their Cold War hearts Why the neocons don’t like Donald Trump (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,226452.msg1065655.html#msg1065655)
It depends on who is using the term.
No biggie. Don't worry about it. It is teaching us patience. LOL.
No biggie. Don't worry about it. It is teaching us patience. LOL.
I am sorry for the slow server....the slowness is sporadic and we are working on the problem...we may have to upgrade to a dedicated server....fingers crossed that the techies can figure this out.......if anyone is knitting I could use some booties while sitting here at the computer.. :nometalk:
Yep, no biggie Myst.
The only real drawback is it is bad for my liver.
Whenever I have to deal with a slow server I usually short them on the tip.
Exactly. It's historical usage has not always been about that. In this context, it is absolutely about that.
Ah...got it! I've always though of "neocon" as being a bit of a slippery, poorly defined word, but I also knew eventually a unified definition of what it means would prevail. Apparently it has been weaponized?
Yep, no biggie Myst.
The only real drawback is it is bad for my liver.
This thread needs more alcohol :beer:
@CatherineofAragon
@goodwithagun
(http://liquor.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Williamsburg-Winery-Two-Shilling-Red.jpg)
Oh hey....speaking of the Iraq war, which service was your husband and son in? I ask because my uncle was a Col. in the Marines and he was over there leading a whole big unit (I forget what you call it, but it was a bunch of people).
Just my son (it was @mystery-ak 's husband). They were Army. Our son was a reservist whose first deployment was in 2003 when he was just turning 19. He was in Water Supply and drove convoys around the Sunni Triangle and saw Mike there. (Mike was with our son when he deployed from Ft. Campbell, and took care of him).My son was Marine Corps Reservist, called up in 2003, 2 months before graduating from College. He turned 22 while he was in Iraq. Had to come back and do the whole last semester all over again. I believe like you that the experience was invaluable for him.
He volunteered for a second deployment and was there most of 2007, cleaning up and carrying out the surge that won the war. He was in Psy Op and it was an amazing experience for which he was awarded the Bronze Star.
It was invaluable for him, and his educational pursuits after that related to what he learned in the service. (Well, other than that music major in college. ^-^).
It's too early in the day for it to start being bad for my liver. That's in about 3-4 hours.
@CatherineofAragon
I'll see your wine and raise you a bottle of Jack...
(https://spiritedgifts.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/j/a/jack-daniels-black-label-old-no.7-gastroflasche-tennessee-whiskey.jpg)
I go to bed in about 4 hours, get up at 5 in the 'Mornin'. Ask Rat.. he was up this mornin' too. Besides, it is always happy hour in some time zone.
My son was Marine Corps Reservist, called up in 2003, 2 months before graduating from College. He turned 22 while he was in Iraq. Had to come back and do the whole last semester all over again. I believe like you that the experience was invaluable for him.
No, I think that was its original meaning. Many of us (me included) just didn't recognize it for what it was.
I am sorry for the slow server....the slowness is sporadic and we are working on the problem...we may have to upgrade to a dedicated server....fingers crossed that the techies can figure this out.......if anyone is knitting I could use some booties while sitting here at the computer.. :nometalk:
I am sorry for the slow server....the slowness is sporadic and we are working on the problem...we may have to upgrade to a dedicated server....fingers crossed that the techies can figure this out.......if anyone is knitting I could use some booties while sitting here at the computer.. :nometalk:
Oh for pete's sake. Some of the page changes are a little slow some of the time. I always attribute it to Internet speed, not to the servers. Such a bunch of whiners. Real world things are not always instant,
Computers have made us incredibly impatient.
Oddly enough, those who back Trump largely embrace NeoConservatism on the issues, while accusing others of the term, with a good bit of antisemitism thrown in... Anti-semitism being an aberration, since neoconservatism is pro-Jewish in it's origins (Strauss).
This thread needs more alcohol :beer:
@goodwithagun
(http://liquor.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Williamsburg-Winery-Two-Shilling-Red.jpg)
Really? It reads like it is way past alcohol and moved on to crack.
(http://i.cbc.ca/1.2627930.1399550138!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/rob-ford-new-drug-video-still.jpg)
Just my son (it was @mystery-ak 's husband). They were Army. Our son was a reservist whose first deployment was in 2003 when he was just turning 19. He was in Water Supply and drove convoys around the Sunni Triangle and saw Mike there. (Mike was with our son when he deployed from Ft. Campbell, and took care of him).
He volunteered for a second deployment and was there most of 2007, cleaning up and carrying out the surge that won the war. He was in Psy Op and it was an amazing experience for which he was awarded the Bronze Star.
It was invaluable for him, and his educational pursuits after that related to what he learned in the service. (Well, other than that music major in college. ^-^).
Oh for pete's sake. Some of the page changes are a little slow some of the time. I always attribute it to Internet speed, not to the servers. Such a bunch of whiners. Real world things are not always instant,
Computers have made us incredibly impatient.
Then, there's something sinister going on here.
When certain Trump supporters view the forum as "guests", the site is lightening fast....the way it's supposed to be.
However, when said Trump supporters....myself included...log on, it takes literally more than a minute for any page to load.
IOW, it can't be the IP address...because in guest mode it works the way it's supposed to.
So tell us....has a certain backroom adversary whose name begins with "O" been manipulating said accounts? Has he enabled something that repeatedly churns...if that's the correct term....making using the forum a very unpleasant experience?
Because I know damned full well not everybody can be experiencing this...otherwise you'd have a riot on your hands.
Pray tell? :shrug:
Good morning, gang!
I was hoping this thread would settle down a bit overnight, but it appears instead some have pulled an all-nighter and have merely toughened their stands and their attitudes. Now I see a member demanding a wholesale slaughter of other members as a way to make TBR Great Again, just like other sites.
We've been through this multiple times, and I would have hoped by now it would be crystal clear we do not ban people for their political beliefs. Apparently not.
Personal attacks will still not be tolerated, and demanding the forcible removal of Members still qualifies as a personal attack.
I will add they were in different Companies...Mike was in Aviation....he was the 1sgt for a Chinook Co...he traveled all over Iraq checking on his men scattered everywhere...even flew Paul Bremer around a few times...
When he was at Campbell I told him to go check on musiclady's son where the were both waiting to be deployed for the invasion......poor kid had no idea why a 1sgt was looking for him...lol
Then, there's something sinister going on here.
When certain Trump supporters view the forum as "guests", the site is lightening fast....the way it's supposed to be.
However, when said Trump supporters....myself included...log on, it takes literally more than a minute for any page to load.
IOW, it can't be the IP address...because in guest mode it works the way it's supposed to.
So tell us....has a certain backroom adversary whose name begins with "O" been manipulating said accounts? Has he enabled something that repeatedly churns...if that's the correct term....making using the forum a very unpleasant experience?
Because I know damned full well not everybody can be experiencing this...otherwise you'd have a riot on your hands.
Pray tell? :shrug:
NeoConservatism is not Conservatism.
It began in Democrats less than enamored of the shift therein toward hard leftism.
It resides in residual fashion, since about the late 60's, in the moderate wing of the Republican Party (Bushes, McCain, Dole), and is effectively the interface of 3rd-way (right wing) socialism in the Republican party. Liberal Christian moral base, military expansionism, Big government... Pays lip service only to Christian conservatism, Constitutional conservatism, and fiscal conservatism. Talks the talk, but inevitably strays far from the walk.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Oddly enough, those who back Trump largely embrace NeoConservatism on the issues, while accusing others of the term, with a good bit of antisemitism thrown in... Anti-semitism being an aberration, since neoconservatism is pro-Jewish in it's origins (Strauss).
That was very nice of you and your husband. I'm glad everyone returned safely. How scary that must be.
That was very nice of you and your husband. I'm glad everyone returned safely. How scary that must be.
Awful. One time Eric's base was rocketed and there were fatalities, and I was quietly panicked. It was through some of the good folks at FR that I got a contact e-mail and found out that I couldn't be told who was on the casualty list, but I could be told that he wasn't on it. I sobbed with relief!
We found out later that he was in the mess hall when it got hit and he found out he wasn't afraid. He helped get people out from under the tables, and he knew the guys who were killed.
Tough for a 19 year old.....
That matches my understanding of the progression, right or wrong. Also the early definition was very pro international military intervention, I think. So in that way the Trumpsters differ. Other than that they are very similar.
I do not think it was stupid. I think it is stupid to forget what we knew and what we didn't know at the time, as well as to forget what a vile monster Saddam was. Remember the Iraqis celebrating their freedom and all the pro-America sentiment at the time? I do. Sure there was also anti sentiment, but for the most part it was a success until Obama came along and pulled out mindlessly.
/snicker
If I were as good a programmer as you claim, I'd be a highly-paid coder; but I'm not. Basic php is my speed.
You know it is a great thread when it gets hijacked by the boss. Alrighty then. Going into Iraq was the height of stupidity. I bet if they would have tried to institute the draft ole Teddy baby would have run back to his home country to avoid it.
sorry for the highjack... :hijack: :poohappen:
Well, if you look at it from my perspective on islam it was worse than stupid. And we didn't leave mindlessly. There was absolutely no point in renewing SOFA. My nephew was one of the Leavenworth 10. Saddam was a vile monster how?
You have nothing to be sorry for. Conversations naturally progress. That fit into a sub-topic perfectly well. For the most part I think the "hijack" charge is stupid. So what. If you follow the conversation it all fits in perfectly.
That hijack charge has been used by some as an excuse to delete posts (not currently...but at one time).
I realize Saddam was a bad guy and all, but he kept Iraq stable, he kept the Islamists out. Now, thanks to Bush and his stupid war, they have taken over and Iraq is in chaos. The Iraq War created ISIS.
That reminds me.....are puppies or kittens cuter?
(http://www.hillchestervet.com/images/content/pet-health/puppies-kittens.jpg)
(And this is how you hijack a thread.)
That reminds me.....are puppies or kittens cuter?
(http://www.hillchestervet.com/images/content/pet-health/puppies-kittens.jpg)
(And this is how you hijack a thread.)
Yeah they were taking the wounded and casualties to Anaconda where Mike was...he was able to check the lists to see if Eric was on it...emailed me to say no and I let you know on FR...what a time....
I realize Saddam was a bad guy and all, but he kept Iraq stable, he kept the Islamists out. Now, thanks to Bush and his stupid war, they have taken over and Iraq is in chaos. The Iraq War created ISIS.
I realize Saddam was a bad guy and all, but he kept Iraq stable, he kept the Islamists out. Now, thanks to Bush and his stupid war, they have taken over and Iraq is in chaos. The Iraq War created ISIS.
Wow. A Trumpkin who loves Saddam, like his boy.@Smokin Joe
Did Bush know about 9/11 in advance? May as well find out if your a truther too.
@mystery-ak
@musiclady
I was proud of your guys over there. They served admirably and for a good cause. One of the many things I cannot stand about Trump is the statement he has made against Bush and against that cause. It was a noble cause and they made great progress until Obama came along and undid all of it.
No. Obama deliberately handing off the ball to the Islamists created ISIS.
No. Obama deliberately handing off the ball to the Islamists created ISIS.
:threadjack: again
OMG...wanna start a forum war birthday boy?.......of course puppies are cuter..
(http://lemerg.com/data/wallpapers/8/726286.jpg)
:threadjack: again
OMG...wanna start a forum war birthday boy?.......of course puppies are cuter..
(http://lemerg.com/data/wallpapers/8/726286.jpg)
I realize Saddam was a bad guy and all, but he kept Iraq stable, he kept the Islamists out. Now, thanks to Bush and his stupid war, they have taken over and Iraq is in chaos. The Iraq War created ISIS.
Wow. A Trumpkin who loves Saddam, like his boy.
Did Bush know about 9/11 in advance? May as well find out if your a truther too.
He also had invaded a neighboring country in the recent past. There was every reason to think the worst of him and to take him out.
Hitler kept German stable too. So what if he slaughtered all the Jews? So what if he invaded neighboring countries?
It is weird how this nation depended on France during its own Revolution, yet some think we should never ever come to the aid of others when they need us. Granted France may have had their own motives, but we sure were willing to take their aid. I'm not for micromanaging the world. But there are times when we must stand up for good over evil and that means we join the fight with allies around the world. There is a time to intervene and a time to not intervene. W made the right choice given what we knew then. The left attacked him for it for political reasons. They were all for Clinton's Bosnian intervention. Trump in true liberal fashion has flip flopped for political gain.
That reminds me.....are puppies or kittens cuter?
(http://www.hillchestervet.com/images/content/pet-health/puppies-kittens.jpg)
(And this is how you hijack a thread.)
He also had invaded a neighboring country in the recent past. There was every reason to think the worst of him and to take him out.
I tried to reduce that picture but I flopped.
All I know is Bush had the country hating and blaming him for 8 years, which is why we got Obama. I think he was a decent man, but he was not a successful President. I think he was a disaster.
On the morning of September 11, 2001 there was exactly one country in the world actually shooting lethal rounds at our military. Just one. And everybody seems shocked we'd consider them an enemy. Are we that confused?
Apparently some of us are.....
Puppies, of course... Though kittens may be more popular... for breakfast!
Oh that is so cute!
@montanajoeAnd here I just thought it was a way to goose the 'thon along. New servers and all that...
Remember every time there was server trouble at TOS? It was always some kind of sinister attack. :thud:
North Korea?
North Korea?
I don't really see how that applies, though.
Iraq and the no fly zone.
I win.
http://www.101dogbreeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Basset-Hound-Puppy.jpg
Okay.
Two countries then.
(Everybody forgets North Korea and our continuing state of war with them.)
I have to admit that is a close second to bullie puppies
(http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/bulldog-puppy-cute-dog-photography-5__605.jpg)
Your premise is that the Iraq was was unwinnable. I dispute that.
We had many options to 'win' Iraq, but we chose not to do so. At the very start of the war, I already had espoused ideas on how to secure a stable postwar Iraq. And the key was to split the country into three states in a federal republic, like the US.
For Iraq has three groups that compete with each other (Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites). Give each a state and they could have lived as they liked, pooling together for defense and pork-barrel projects funded by oil revenue/taxes.
But instead, we chose a parliamentary system, where the most populous group could dominant over the others. And that sparked the Sunni terror attacks, as they had been the previous top-dogs and didn't like their former 'serfs' lording over them.
I saw that at the start. I saw it during our time there. And it's still applicable today. There will be no peace until those three groups can feel free to live as they would like in a territory where they feel safe to do so.
We just chose to ignore it.
I have to admit that is a close second to bullie puppies
(http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/bulldog-puppy-cute-dog-photography-5__605.jpg)
Everything you wrote is false.
Saddam embraced Islamists, giving them the land and funds to run training camps. He paid the families of suicide bombers for their terror.
He did not keep Iraq stable. He terrorized Iraq, making it ripe for revolts. Shiites and Kurds both did so in the short time between the 1st and 2nd Gulf wars.
ISIS is not in control of Iraq. It occupies parts and is being slowly pushed out.
And ISIS was borne out of the conflict in Syria... or more precisely, the lack of support (ie: funds) to the free Syrian Amry when they first broke with Assad. They were a competent fighting force that had access to eager recruits, but no source/money for new military equipment needed to fight.
By the time the West moved, they had been broken. And the monies to fight were coming from Islamist sources.
@Smokin JoeThere are 28 unreleased pages detailing Saudi Arabian connections to the incidents of 9/11. The Bush Administration buried them. Darrell Castle has been called a "troofer" for wanting them released. (not for wild-eyed conspiracy theories, just wanting those pages of the report released).
What is buried in the 9-11 report?
It's not our job to be world police. The only justification for war is if we are attacked.Or, if we are bound by treaty agreement to come to the aid of an ally who is attacked.
I win.
25 pages of 13 people repeating various iterations of "I'm not budging."You should do that in your litter box! Bad Kitty!
Really? I didn't know that. After hearing 125,000 repetitions on every board of this forum from the same 13 people, I was still in the dark. Who knew? Sheesh!
Honestly, we get it, you 13 people – you're not going to vote for Donald Trump.
(What did y'all get, a set of shiny new virtues for Christmas and can't help showing them off?)
25 pages of 13 people repeating various iterations of "I'm not budging."
Really? I didn't know that. After hearing 125,000 repetitions on every board of this forum from the same 13 people, I was still in the dark. Who knew? Sheesh!
Honestly, we get it, you 13 people – you're not going to vote for Donald Trump.
(What did y'all get, a set of shiny new virtues for Christmas and can't help showing them off?)
Not much difference in philosophy between these Trump supporters and your average Code Pink/Ron Paul Mob Zombie is there?
Sorry, not if it's below zero....
Boy really sounds like the mob that ran FR 2006ish or so. Tried to get their daddy JimRob to ban anyone who disagreed on the war. I remember that time period and some of you. I haven't forgotten.
Ironic...
The fine and noble Basset warms all hearts. So nothing near a basset ever falls below zero. The heat of joy they bring melts all ;)
Boy, have I been put in my place. Such brilliant repartee. I have been publicly shamed by your retorts.
"Thank you sir may I have another?" 8888crybaby
LOL! You're welcome to that line of thought... but just in case you find yourself in error, my pup turns into this:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Tnd-bl-DaRE/TB6KXRmniiI/AAAAAAAAACE/hFc2cCaxHdE/s320/Bared_Teeth_Grey_Wolf.jpg)
I am no Trump supporter. I am no Bush-lover either. I opposed the Iraq War(The 21st century Vietnam) from day one. There were no WMDs, as I suspected from day one. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and posed no threat to us. Bush lied, so he can finish up Daddy's business and appease their Saudi masters.
25 pages of 13 people repeating various iterations of "I'm not budging."
Really? I didn't know that. After hearing 125,000 repetitions on every board of this forum from the same 13 people, I was still in the dark. Who knew? Sheesh!
Honestly, we get it, you 13 people – you're not going to vote for Donald Trump.
Boy, have I been put in my place. Such brilliant repartee. I have been publicly shamed by your retorts.
"Thank you sir may I have another?" 8888crybaby
heh heh heh
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2nh0y02.gif)
BS! 100% USDA CHOICE GRADE A.
Bushbots still in denial.
Bushbots still in denial.
I hear what you're saying but I just don't care.
I care. I care very deeply. I care so deeply I lose sleep over it.
Just what was the name of Uncle Joe's dog on Pettycoat Junction?
God created the basset to both tug at the heartstrings...because NOTHING out-cutes a Basset puppy. But when they grow up? Oh yes! they are cute and funny and personality for days...They will make you insane. They are the most stubborn things on earth. Pandora's Dog.
Just what was the name of Uncle Joe's dog on Pettycoat Junction?
Sam
Best dog ever.
Threadjacking is to hijacking as this thread is to 9/11.
Holy cow.
I am no Trump supporter. I am no Bush-lover either. I opposed the Iraq War(The 21st century Vietnam) from day one. There were no WMDs, as I suspected from day one. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and posed no threat to us. Bush lied, so he can finish up Daddy's business and appease their Saudi masters.
I take it that you were a Kerry supporter in 2004 since this is the exact same rhetoric that came out of that campaign.
This is a two-fer in niceness.
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-03/campaign_images/webdr06/31/14/a-golden-retriever-and-some-baby-chicks-are-all-y-2-9439-1396289719-9_dblbig.jpg)
@Frank Cannon
The dog's name was "dog." It had no other name.
@Frank Cannon
The dog's name was "dog." It had no other name.
Higgins!
How do you like the job I did? In between the fights about the Bush years, people are posting cute animal pics and discussing a CBS show from the 60's! Total chaos.
Higgins was Robin Masters lap dog. Selleck's stunt double. Sam
I have a lojack on this topic in case of a hijack. I know where the topic is at all times.
HEY! They added 10 new episodes to Longmire on Netflix. @Longmire and YOU kept it to yourself. I'm telling Sam.
Side note:As to your side note, Yep, and there were more there than even Bush liked to admit.
Many of us with military families laugh every time we see someone talk about no WMDs. Not because we sold Saddam WMDs prior, which is a historical fact. But because some of us had family that actually found them, handled them, and disposed of them both onsite and in other ways.
But thats OK. People can believe what they like.
Oh...lets not forget that we have since admitted that they were there as a government.
Thanks. Now I can get the first good night's sleep I had in 37 years. 😴Okay. What was the name of Dudley Do-right's Horse?
Okay. What was the name of Dudley Do-right's Horse?
Name all Rocket Robin Hood's pals and where did the show take place?I can dig it up, but that is a show I didn't get to see (or don't recall, which is unlikely) back when. Having never seen it, it seems it wouldn't be fair to give the answer from a website (unless you think so, in which case I'll dig the answers up).
I can dig it up, but that is a show I didn't get to see (or don't recall, which is unlikely) back when. Having never seen it, it seems it wouldn't be fair to give the answer from a website (unless you think so, in which case I'll dig the answers up).
It was a Canadian cartoon that saw limited TV time in places along the border so most people wouldn't know it (66-70 or so). I just wanted to see if anyone remembered it more than anything (Only the sherriff of NOTT was named differently than the traditional characters and they were on Sherwood Asteroid)In those days I lived in the MD tidewater, so that was one I missed.
In those days I lived in the MD tidewater, so that was one I missed.
You spent your early years as a blue crab and now look at the magnificent barnacled creature you are today.
And Dudley's horse was named Sam.
Rocket Robin's lair was Heavens and the main city on Sherwood asteroid was Mergatroid. So when the Band headed to the strip clubs they went from Heavens to Mergatroid.
You spent your early years as a blue crab and now look at the magnificent barnacled creature you are today.:silly: A funny part about that was that I found some fossil crabs here in North Dakota in the badlands. In a serious normalcy bias event, I didn't think much of the crab shells because I had seen them everywhere in my youth :blonde moment:...and left them there. Later it dawned on me that those were pretty old considering the last time there was salty water here (that didn't come out of an oil well). Oops... :facepalm2:
And Dudley's horse was named Sam.
Rocket Robin's lair was Heavens and the main city on Sherwood asteroid was Mergatroid. So when the Band headed to the strip clubs they went from Heavens to Mergatroid.
Heavens to Mergatroid.
He also had invaded a neighboring country in the recent past. There was every reason to think the worst of him and to take him out.
Hitler kept Germany stable too. So what if he slaughtered all the Jews? So what if he invaded neighboring countries?
It is weird how this nation depended on France during its own Revolution, yet some think we should never ever come to the aid of others when they need us. Granted France may have had their own motives, but we sure were willing to take their aid. I'm not for micromanaging the world. But there are times when we must stand up for good over evil and that means we join the fight with allies around the world. There is a time to intervene and a time to not intervene. W made the right choice given what we knew then. The left attacked him for it for political reasons. They were all for Clinton's Bosnian intervention. Trump in true liberal fashion has flip flopped for political gain.
Everything you wrote is false.And another Terrific Post!
Saddam embraced Islamists, giving them the land and funds to run training camps. He paid the families of suicide bombers for their terror.
He did not keep Iraq stable. He terrorized Iraq, making it ripe for revolts. Shiites and Kurds both did so in the short time between the 1st and 2nd Gulf wars.
ISIS is not in control of Iraq. It occupies parts and is being slowly pushed out.
And ISIS was borne out of the conflict in Syria... or more precisely, the lack of support (ie: funds) to the free Syrian Amry when they first broke with Assad. They were a competent fighting force that had access to eager recruits, but no source/money for new military equipment needed to fight.
By the time the West moved, they had been broken. And the monies to fight were coming from Islamist sources.
I am no Trump supporter. I am no Bush-lover either. I opposed the Iraq War(The 21st century Vietnam) from day one. There were no WMDs, as I suspected from day one. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and posed no threat to us. Bush lied, so he can finish up Daddy's business and appease their Saudi masters.You hate the GOP president from 2000-2008...you don't like the current GOP candidate...and you parrot rat slogans... :pondering:
Boy, have I been put in my place. Such brilliant repartee. I have been publicly shamed by your retorts.
"Thank you sir may I have another?" 8888crybaby
Bushbots still in denial.I'm convinced.
Assume the position.
25 pages of 13 people repeating various iterations of "I'm not budging."
Really? I didn't know that. After hearing 125,000 repetitions on every board of this forum from the same 13 people, I was still in the dark. Who knew? Sheesh!
Honestly, we get it, you 13 people – you're not going to vote for Donald Trump.
(What did y'all get, a set of shiny new virtues for Christmas and can't help showing them off?)
I am no Trump supporter. I am no Bush-lover either. I opposed the Iraq War(The 21st century Vietnam) from day one. There were no WMDs, as I suspected from day one. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and posed no threat to us. Bush lied, so he can finish up Daddy's business and appease their Saudi masters.
Of course there were WMDs. We found some. And it's pretty clear that a bunch were moved to Syria before the war started--they were used to attack Jordan later. Pretending otherwise is just stupid.
There were tons and tons of WMD found in IRAQ but Saddam, the inconsiderate bastard, had them labeled "Insecticide" instead of WMD!
Okay. What was the name of Dudley Do-right's Horse?
HEY! They added 10 new episodes to Longmire on Netflix.
Nell.
@Smokin Joe Joe
@Frank Cannon
@MOD5
Neigh Wingy. It was Sam.
There were tons and tons of WMD found in IRAQ but Saddam, the inconsiderate bastard, had them labeled "Insecticide" instead of WMD!
You and your chickens. That one is very cute.(https://gifcrap.com/g2data/albums/Kids/Kid%20gets%20chased%20by%20a%20rooster.gif)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/B2ClcuU1SPtRe/giphy.gif)
The most important thing is how this helped ME. Since it didn't and in fact had deleterious effects it was a complete waste and I for one am glad baby George, the inconsiderate bastard, disappeared in shame. heh heh heh
Some are incapable of seeing how anything helped them personally. Doesn't mean it didn't happen however.
I ain't arguing over WMD's. Tell me one good thing going into Iraq accomplished that couldn't have been done with surgical airstrikes or a couple of neutron bombs.It taught the Bin Laden's of the world that the USA isn't a "Paper Tiger." It taught them that we do not have to wait to be attacked. We can act proactively. The message that was sent was if you mess with us not only will we take you out, but we take out your neighbors too. That is a message that was heard by ME countries who ,until Dubya, have had little reason to curb terrorism training camps within their country.
Yep I do, as I recall it usually happened when the begathons stalled but you are right there was a connection ... :tinfoil:
Never attribute malice to what could be simple incompetence. I always had my doubts that John ever really had a handle on what he was doing.
And here I just thought it was a way to goose the 'thon along. New servers and all that...
You're right. This thread is a national disaster.
LOL! The only restaurant I was ever kicked out of was a Roy Rogers in Fredricksburg VA, back in the '70s. I ordered a 'Trigger Burger' and they showed me the door.
Trigger warning.
(http://content.screencast.com/users/Fantomou/folders/Jing/media/aa48d8a8-fa15-4c20-b6b0-8f5f123bf1c3/00000312.png)
It taught the Bin Laden's of the world that the USA isn't a "Paper Tiger." It taught them that we do not have to wait to be attacked. We can act proactively. The message that was sent was if you mess with us not only will we take you out, but we take out your neighbors too. That is a message that was heard by ME countries who ,until Dubya, have had little reason to curb terrorism training camps within their country.
Iraq sucks now, but we can't know what kind of aggression Saddam would have pursued in the absence of our response to his REPEATED violations of U.N. resolutions.
@montanajoe
Well, there was a connection as far as TOS's conspiracy theorists were concerned, lol.
True story?
Forgit the strawman. You can't even make a stick figure out of that.I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to educate you.
I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to educate you.
You think John could at least handle the fire extinguisher when the vacuum tubes overheated.
LOL! The only restaurant I was ever kicked out of was a Roy Rogers in Fredricksburg VA, back in the '70s. I ordered a 'Trigger Burger' and they showed me the door.
As for 9/11, I have three words: My Pet Goat.
Michael Moore?
As I said earlier, Bush ignored the threats/warnings and let 9/11 happen because it gave him the excuse he needed to go to Iraq and to rape the Constitution(Patriot Act, suspension of habeas corpus, etc).
I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to educate you.
As I said earlier, Bush ignored the threats/warnings and let 9/11 happen because it gave him the excuse he needed to go to Iraq and to rape the Constitution(Patriot Act, suspension of habeas corpus, etc).Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit when you are doing such a fine job all by yourself.
LOL! The only restaurant I was ever kicked out of was a Roy Rogers in Fredricksburg VA, back in the '70s. I ordered a 'Trigger Burger' and they showed me the door.
I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to educate you.
Some people can't take a joke.
Here's what I could find in a few minutes:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=216499.0
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=199108.0
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=199945.0
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,199338.msg817802.html#msg817802
When Anne Frank's stepsister says that 'Trump acts like Hitler'...one ought to really sit up and take notice.
Except that it has been the practice of the Trump Militant to appeal to the Mods to get such references deleted, scrubbed and banned from utterance.
I have a relative who grew up under the Reich as a young teen, and he says the same exact thing.
As I said earlier, Bush ignored the threats/warnings and let 9/11 happen because it gave him the excuse he needed to go to Iraq and to rape the Constitution(Patriot Act, suspension of habeas corpus, etc).
That is bats*** crazy talk. Bush did a lot of things wrong, but you have veered sharply into Michael Moore/Oliver Stone/Alex Jones territory.
If you're going to make such claims you best be able to back them up. Go for it -
That is bats*** crazy talk. Bush did a lot of things wrong, but you have veered sharply into Michael Moore/Oliver Stone/Alex Jones territory.
If you're going to make such claims you best be able to back them up. Go for it -
That is bats*** crazy talk. Bush did a lot of things wrong, but you have veered sharply into Michael Moore/Oliver Stone/Alex Jones territory.
If you're going to make such claims you best be able to back them up. Go for it -
Legitimate debate wins only come when everyone can say what they really think. So his ridiculous theory is there for all to see.
True story?True story.
Some people can't take a joke.True, that.
Except that it has been the practice of the Trump Militant to appeal to the Mods to get such references deleted, scrubbed and banned from utterance.
I have a relative who grew up under the Reich as a young teen, and he says the same exact thing.
You're right. This thread is a national disaster.
It was "horse." Just like the dog in Petticoat Junction, Do-Right's horse did not have a name.'Twas a horse named Horse, of course, of course.
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtKddazVUAA53zq.jpg)
...like finding out there's no Santa Claus.
8888crybaby
I so can't figure WTF is going on there. I could never smile being held by Aunt Esther. Could that be a cardboard cutout?
They are just showing humanity to each other. Nothing is being signed and no legislation is being advocated. Wasn't that at the African American Museum opening event? What should they do? Snarl at each other. It means nothing other than MAYBE similar to the shaking of hands by two boxers before they fight. Only not even that since neither person is taking up an opposing view at the moment.
I think we need to relearn the art of human kindness regardless of other disagreements. So to that end, I say it is a nice picture. Maybe it's the girl in me. ?? And maybe I'm a hypocrite on that at times. ?? But I am not going to berate either person in that picture. The meaning may be deep but it is not broad.
They are just showing humanity to each other. Nothing is being signed and no legislation is being advocated. Wasn't that at the African American Museum opening event? What should they do? Snarl at each other. It means nothing other than MAYBE similar to the shaking of hands by two boxers before they fight. Only not even that since neither person is taking up an opposing view at the moment.
I think we need to relearn the art of human kindness regardless of other disagreements. So to that end, I say it is a nice picture. Maybe it's the girl in me. ?? And maybe I'm a hypocrite on that at times. ?? But I am not going to berate either person in that picture. The meaning may be deep but it is not broad.
Yes. Trump is a cancer.
What third paragraph? 888high58888 (done)
Syria attacked Jordan?
Was this a large scale military battle? I usually keep up with such things, but I don't recall anything about that.
As I said earlier, Bush ignored the threats/warnings and let 9/11 happen because it gave him the excuse he needed to go to Iraq and to rape the Constitution(Patriot Act, suspension of habeas corpus, etc).
I so can't figure WTF is going on there. I could never smile being held by Aunt Esther. Could that be a cardboard cutout?
Would you mind editing out that third paragraph? I thought better of what I said.
(I'm trying to behave myself and not get these Trump guys any madder at me than they already are!)
OK. I give up. You people ARE correct. If you look at figures for deaths in Iraq--from the low too the high--one CAN say that the elimination of so many POTENTIAL enemies is a good thing.
Between 156,531 and 175,101 violent civilian deaths since January 2003. Iraq Body Count, a volunteer-led organization, has been counting deaths since near the start of the war. It can only provide an “irrefutable baseline,” it says, because of how it finds evidence: cross‑checking media reports of violent events or of bodies being found with figures from hospitals, morgues, other NGOs and official figures.
At least 151,000 “violent deaths” between 2003 and 2008. This estimate comes from a study by the Iraqi Government in collaboration with the World Health Organization, which surveyed 9,345 households and extrapolated the data. The possible range was enormous: between 80,000 and 234,000 deaths.
461,000 “excess deaths” between 2003 to 2011. This estimate comes from a 2013 survey of 2,000 households by a group of American, Canadian, and Iraqi researchers. Two-thirds of these deaths were found to be due to direct violence, and a third to indirect causes like failed heath systems.
"Violent civilian deaths?" "Excess deaths?" You do realize there was a WAR going on there, right? And any civilians who were thought to be aiding the US (whether true or not) were targeted by the Sunni insurgent fighters. Your numbers aren't even laughable, they're totally meaningless.
How can you be so blind to what you have become? Such a purge won't stop there it will cross over into the real world and I believe that is what so many Trump supporters want, they want to punish people who don't believe and then they wonder where the Fascist talk comes from? Trump supporters talk about keeping list on conservative opponents for payback later, they talk about revenge and retribution and how they will make the 'traitors' pay after Trump takes office is this what America has become?
Now some would claim, that such behavior is only committed by few or at other sites like TOS, but the real heart of the matter is that other Trump supporters stood by and said nothing and that is where such militants get their power when good men say nothing. And that is what is happening here.
Everyone on that list are loyal God fearing Americans many have sacrificed for this country and not one of them are afraid to do so when or if called upon.
So I am making a stand here DC please add my name to the list. And if my tag line isn't enough warning then read this: When you decide you have the cojones to come for your payback, I am giving you fair warning come carrying and bring friends; that's more of a warning than I am sure to expect from you or any of your cronies.
@Jazzhead
@INVAR
@Cripplecreek
@Catherine of Aragon
@skeeter
@jmyrlefuller
@Suppressed
@Night Hides Not
@Norm Lenhart
@catfish 1957
@Fantom
@sinkspur
@libertybele
@LMAO
@RAT Patrol .
@bigheadfred
@bilo
@musiclady
@Chosen Daughter
@Bigun
@mystery-ak
@mrpotatohead
@Emjay
@Victoria33
@Xena-Lee
@Sanguine
@Once-Ler
@txradioguy
@kartographer
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.
"Violent civilian deaths?" "Excess deaths?" You do realize there was a WAR going on there, right? And any civilians who were thought to be aiding the US (whether true or not) were targeted by the Sunni insurgent fighters. Your numbers aren't even laughable, they're totally meaningless.
"Violent civilian deaths?" "Excess deaths?" You do realize there was a WAR going on there, right? And any civilians who were thought to be aiding the US (whether true or not) were targeted by the Sunni insurgent fighters. Your numbers aren't even laughable, they're totally meaningless.
Never, EVER concern yourself with what a bunch of sawed off little wannabees gets angry over. Your time is to valuable to waste it over people of no value.
They aren't my numbers. All those Iraqi deaths are meaningless. I like that. You make a very good case. Using your logic all the deaths accrued through the HOLOCAUST were meaningless. Congratulations.
But the HOLOCAUST got much worse when the Allies were approaching, bighead.
If we had just not invaded Germany, just think how many of them might not have been slaughtered.
The game you're playing goes both ways.
Blaming our troops for the deaths caused by Sunni terrorists is just wrong.
The BAD guys killed the Jews, and the BAD guys killed Iraqi citizens.
THOSE are the facts, fred.
btw, you are deliberately MISQUOTING DougLoss when you say that he said the deaths were meaningless.
Your "facts" and distortion thereof are what is meaningless.
Daniel 3New International Version (NIV)
The Image of Gold and the Blazing Furnace
3 King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, sixty cubits high and six cubits wide,[a] and set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. 2 He then summoned the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials to come to the dedication of the image he had set up. 3 So the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials assembled for the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up, and they stood before it.
4 Then the herald loudly proclaimed, “Nations and peoples of every language, this is what you are commanded to do: 5 As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe and all kinds of music, you must fall down and worship the image of gold that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. 6 Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace.”
This election has gone beyond a political candidate. Send me to the furnace!
OK. I give up. You people ARE correct. If you look at figures for deaths in Iraq--from the low too the high--one CAN say that the elimination of so many POTENTIAL enemies is a good thing.
Between 156,531 and 175,101 violent civilian deaths since January 2003. Iraq Body Count, a volunteer-led organization, has been counting deaths since near the start of the war. It can only provide an “irrefutable baseline,” it says, because of how it finds evidence: cross‑checking media reports of violent events or of bodies being found with figures from hospitals, morgues, other NGOs and official figures.
At least 151,000 “violent deaths” between 2003 and 2008. This estimate comes from a study by the Iraqi Government in collaboration with the World Health Organization, which surveyed 9,345 households and extrapolated the data. The possible range was enormous: between 80,000 and 234,000 deaths.
461,000 “excess deaths” between 2003 to 2011. This estimate comes from a 2013 survey of 2,000 households by a group of American, Canadian, and Iraqi researchers. Two-thirds of these deaths were found to be due to direct violence, and a third to indirect causes like failed heath systems.
Get a grip. Where have I blamed our troops?
UPDATE
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-11/14/12/enhanced/webdr06/enhanced-buzz-2356-1415984579-18.jpg)
3 pages back you were complaining we should have dropped neutron bombs on the Iraqi people and now you're all whiny about civilian deaths. Your hypocrisy is showing.
I'm really trying to figure this out. Bush's removal of the BAD guy opened the door for the BAD guys to kill hundreds of thousands of people and that is a good thing. Right? Right.
I'm not whiny about civilian deaths. I'm just trying to figure out your excuses for defending something that was MFUTU.You are whiny about civilian deaths. I already defended the Iraq war - YOU RESPONDED TO MY POST - and then I said I was obviously wasting my time. I suspect you are incapable of remembering posts from hours earlier, or you are just intellectually dishonest. I'm done pretending I'm arguing with an adult.
That is a beautiful verse. It does not apply here. Billionaire Trump is neither hungry nor thirsty. He wanted Cruz to be his partner in crime, achieving power the authoritarian/snake oil salesman way. Cruz submitted. Bad move.
You are whiny about civilian deaths. I already defended the Iraq war - YOU RESPONDED TO MY POST - and then I said I was obviously wasting my time. I suspect you are incapable of remembering posts from hours earlier, or you are just intellectually dishonest. I'm done pretending I'm arguing with an adult.
No. Obama's removal of the troops that secured the country after the surge resulted in the bad guys coming in.
No. Obama's removal of the troops that secured the country after the surge resulted in the bad guys coming in.
As for me and mine, we're voting with Cruz.
But you wouldn't do that until Cruz sold out to the liberal. Situational ethics on full display. When it was time to stand with Cruz as a conservative, where were you? But now that he stands with a liberal, there you are.
You are elevated and correct, dear sir.
Please allow me to rephrase.
As for me and mine, Cruz is voting with us.
About the Cruz endorsement: https://twitter.com/RMConservative
Direct link: http://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/show/conservativeconscience/id/4692984
Thanks for the heads up. I like that podcast by Daniel Horowitz. He agrees that Cruz made a terrible strategic mistake, but he has helped me soften a little. Time will tell if Cruz is caving big time. I'll give him a chance to redeem himself. I'm still VERY disappointed -- mad even -- but I do not want to cut off my nose to spite my face with this. Cruz has been a strong ally. We shall see.
Thanks for the heads up. I like that podcast by Daniel Horowitz. He agrees that Cruz made a terrible strategic mistake, but he has helped me soften a little. Time will tell if Cruz is caving big time. I'll give him a chance to redeem himself. I'm still VERY disappointed -- mad even -- but I do not want to cut off my nose to spite my face with this. Cruz has been a strong ally. We shall see.
Are you familiar with SOFA?
I hope he does redeem himself. But we arent cutting off our noses here. Cruz' past great actions aside, He had one job and when it mattered most, he failed in the worst way. He completely crapped all over his years of principle because when it mattered, he did not stand on it.
So even if he redeems himself, no one has the slightest reason to think him principled, nor to trust him. Actions are what they are.
I am disappointed along with everyone else. I hoped this would happen a long time ago. My ticket was always Trump/Cruz. Still sorry that didn't work. It was close at times, but alas, we did not win the BIG Teddy bear.
Alright. It is time to buck-up, regroup, and figure out what to do and where to go from here. It is what it is.
I hope he does redeem himself. But we arent cutting off our noses here. Cruz' past great actions aside, He had one job and when it mattered most, he failed in the worst way. He completely crapped all over his years of principle because when it mattered, he did not stand on it.
So even if he redeems himself, no one has the slightest reason to think him principled, nor to trust him. Actions are what they are.
Yes. I'm also familiar with the fact that Obama made no effort to renegotiate it (which he could have done). He wanted out.
And here we are.
Well, let's see. If Hillary wins Cruz and all the Cruzbots can't be blamed and if Trump wins then Cruz will be seen as keeping his word and supporting the GOP nominee. If he didn't vote for Trump and Hillary won he would be blamed for her winning and if Trump won and he didn't vote for him then he would be seen as the person who didn't keep his word and didn't support his party. What a circus! Actually, I see that he is more concerned about the country and seating a conservative justice than being concerned about being judged. He voted his conscience. I still strongly support Cruz.
Don't you realize that being a human being is not permitted in politics? That kindness is prohibited??I recall a day when bitter enemies in the political arena could stand next to each other at a Church Dinner, county fair, or Fire Department Parade and be downright civil. That wouldn't stop them from fighting tooth and nail on the floor of the Legislature or at a debate, but that was politics, not personal.
Do you remember how much flak President Bush always took just because he was a gentleman, and well mannered??
It was his worst 'flaw'............... being human.
I recall a day when bitter enemies in the political arena could stand next to each other at a Church Dinner, county fair, or Fire Department Parade and be downright civil. That wouldn't stop them from fighting tooth and nail on the floor of the Legislature or at a debate, but that was politics, not personal.
But then, George Washington's Rules of Civility were still held up as a guideline for personal, and even political conduct,despite some being dated.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rules_of_Civility_and_Decent_Behaviour_in_Company_and_Conversation (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rules_of_Civility_and_Decent_Behaviour_in_Company_and_Conversation)
I recall a day when bitter enemies...
Everybody wanted us out.
There were overtures. Or something. No doubt it was a tactical "mistake". But with obama I think it was planned. He had an EZ out. The point I am trying to make is that we supposedly were trying to give the Iraqi's freedom. They chose their own sovereignty. You can't justify hindsight. You have to go with the assessment as it occurred. "Bush" put into place the US-Iraq SOFA. We should have tried to negotiate harder, sure, whatever. But the Iraqi's wanted jurisdiction over prosecuting our troops for "off-duty" crimes. I would absolutely not give them that. Keeping troops there, either by force or connivance, isn't really what we supposedly fought for, is it? They wanted their freedom. They got their freedom. And it is a shitshow. It was that before obama took office. ME islamists are only really good at one thing. Shitshows.
I have no problem with people defending their families who had members that served. My nephew served. Evan Vela Carnahan. I am not going to debate his actions here. But I will debate the way his case was handled. It is my opinion that GWB's mishandling of the entire affair from the get go (the war) is unpardonable as far as his role as POTUS. Instead of sending a message it opened up the big tent for an extravaganza that islamists excel at.
Let's see now............ how many Jews, Poles and Gypsies were killed in concentration camps during the years the Allies were fighting in Europe in WWII? How much worse did it get the closer we came to victory? Was it our fault they died because we were trying to liberate them from an evil dictator?War is hell, especially for civilians, who get caught in crossfires, become 'collateral damage', are killed by invading or indigenous troops, are killed for resources (food, etc.), are raped and killed by either side or other civilians, who are killed for being collaborators, or not being collaborators, who starve, die of illness that might not have killed them in peacetime. Even without a pogrom, times are tough for most.
The left can use numbers to warp reality as much as they want, but it does matter WHO was doing the killing.
Those innocent Iraqis being killed were killed by terrorists in their own country. Blaming those deaths on us is preposterous.
One can argue about the wisdom of invading Iraq and both sides have solid points, but calling Bush, or worse, our TROOPS killers is just vile.
How can you be so blind to what you have become? Such a purge won't stop there it will cross over into the real world and I believe that is what so many Trump supporters want, they want to punish people who don't believe and then they wonder where the Fascist talk comes from? Trump supporters talk about keeping list on conservative opponents for payback later, they talk about revenge and retribution and how they will make the 'traitors' pay after Trump takes office is this what America has become?Add me too! I don't mind being on another list, I'm likely on a bunch already.
Now some would claim, that such behavior is only committed by few or at other sites like TOS, but the real heart of the matter is that other Trump supporters stood by and said nothing and that is where such militants get their power when good men say nothing. And that is what is happening here.
Everyone on that list are loyal God fearing Americans many have sacrificed for this country and not one of them are afraid to do so when or if called upon.
So I am making a stand here DC please add my name to the list. And if my tag line isn't enough warning then read this: When you decide you have the cojones to come for your payback, I am giving you fair warning come carrying and bring friends; that's more of a warning than I am sure to expect from you or any of your cronies.
@Jazzhead
@INVAR
@Cripplecreek
@Catherine of Aragon
@skeeter
@jmyrlefuller
@Suppressed
@Night Hides Not
@Norm Lenhart
@catfish 1957
@Fantom
@sinkspur
@libertybele
@LMAO
@RAT Patrol .
@bigheadfred
@bilo
@musiclady
@Chosen Daughter
@Bigun
@mystery-ak
@mrpotatohead
@Emjay
@Victoria33
@Xena-Lee
@Sanguine
@Once-Ler
@txradioguy
@kartographer
@Smokin Joe
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.
No everybody didn't want us out! Not by a long shot. The only ones who did were the leftist in Washington and their friends in the media. The fact that we had an enemy agent sitting in the White House let them get their way.
President Obama's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year generally fits with Americans' wishes, if not those of many Republicans. Americans have been opposed to the Iraq war for many years. Since 2005, on average, a majority have said the U.S. made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq.
Ok. I rephrase. You didn't. The MAJORITY did.
That is a beautiful verse. It does not apply here. Billionaire Trump is neither hungry nor thirsty. He wanted Cruz to be his partner in crime, achieving power the authoritarian/snake oil salesman way. Cruz submitted. Bad move.Oh, I dunno.
That's what they say! Just goes to show that the majority is very often wrong!
Maybe all I know is I don't to see thousands more of our kids in the ME under ROE's so restrictive they are cannon fodder. Not only from people there, but people here.
That's what they say! Just goes to show that the majority is very often wrong!
Oh, I dunno.
I see him as hungry for adulation, thirsty for the worshipful clamoring of the masses, and full of avarice. The last ones standing in a sea of groveling sycophants are the sediment in his wine, the grounds in his coffee, the bones in his fish, the eggshells in his omelette, ever a reminder that his conquest is not and never will be complete.
Until we have someone who is willing to undo what Jimmuh Caaaata did in that region i.e. allow the mullahs to take over the government of Iran, it's all only going to get worse.
I came to my views on islam and islamists when I lived in Egypt shortly after the Camp David accord. I haven't changed it one lick since.
Add me too! I don't mind being on another list, I'm likely on a bunch already.
Me too! Me too! :raise hand:
Actually, I see that he is more concerned about the country and seating a conservative justice
That list is growing to include most of the finest people on this forum.
I am PROUD to be in such HONORABLE company!
Take note Trumpster 'sepia' shirt wearing Trump supporters I don't want you to miss anyone!
@Jazzhead
@INVAR
@Cripplecreek
@Catherine of Aragon
@skeeter
@jmyrlefuller
@Suppressed
@Night Hides Not
@Norm Lenhart
@catfish 1957
@Fantom
@sinkspur
@libertybele
@LMAO
@RAT Patrol .
@bigheadfred
@bilo
@musiclady
@Chosen Daughter
@Bigun
@mystery-ak
@mrpotatohead
@Emjay
@Victoria33
@Xena-Lee
@Sanguine
@Once-Ler
@txradioguy
@kartographer
@Smokin Joe
@montanajoe
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.
Yeah, well, I do not disagree with you. I do not mean we are NOW cutting off our nose to spite our face. I really mean it going forward IF Cruz sticks to his past strengths and this one HORRIBLE action is just an anomaly made under duress. It will always be there against him. I agree. But I will see what he does over the next 2 to 4 years before I decide he is a total bum like all the others.
@Norm Lenhart, it was a great podcast by Daniel Horowitz.
Add me too! I don't mind being on another list, I'm likely on a bunch already.
You are preaching to the choir. I was merely trying to give him a chance.
As for the above mentioned list: It is almost like they stole my buddy list. But there are some still missing. Maybe I should message them the rest of the list.
Then why would he endorsed a leftist nutcase that cannot be trusted to do that...
You are preaching to the choir. I was merely trying to give him a chance.
As for the above mentioned list: It is almost like they stole my buddy list. But there are some still missing. Maybe I should message them the rest of the list.
Because he KNOWS Hillary will appoint the worst liberals imaginable and the thinks that there is a POSSIBILITY that the leftist nutcase might appoint someone good.
Just playin' the odds.
Not me. Last time I let someone put me on a list Ed McMahon loaded my mailbox....
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-3/publishers-clearing-house-edmcmahon.jpg)
Not me. Last time I let someone put me on a list Ed McMahon loaded my mailbox....
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-3/publishers-clearing-house-edmcmahon.jpg)
OK think about this. TC had one piece of leverage. As the defacto conservative leader, he had what remains of actual conservatism behind him. Now that's gone.
Going forward he has no leverage. nothing that he can stand on the next time mitch lies to his face.
I don't know how you kept off the list either. There is at least one other person on the list who is voting for Trump.
His check bounced.
LOL. Yup. That Budweiser money didn't hold out as long as he thought it would....
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/56/a8/66/56a86695a7c6118b92d9d270f77374a3.jpg)
How did you keep off the list, @geronl?
Everybody wanted us out.The MSM was calling the war 'another Vietnam' before the dust settled from the first units crossing the border. They pushed that premise (just as they pushed it during the Vietnam War), that somehow our guys were losing the war, and did every damned thing they could to make that happen. In VIetnam, the media undercut the Military victories, especially the destruction of the VietCong that occurred with Tet, and kept insisting to the folks back home we couldn't win. It has been the same with the War in Afghanistan and Iraq, and when the Democrats got to call the shots they made the loss official if they could. Obama is just following that pattern.
There were overtures. Or something. No doubt it was a tactical "mistake". But with obama I think it was planned. He had an EZ out. The point I am trying to make is that we supposedly were trying to give the Iraqi's freedom. They chose their own sovereignty. You can't justify hindsight. You have to go with the assessment as it occurred. "Bush" put into place the US-Iraq SOFA. We should have tried to negotiate harder, sure, whatever. But the Iraqi's wanted jurisdiction over prosecuting our troops for "off-duty" crimes. I would absolutely not give them that. Keeping troops there, either by force or connivance, isn't really what we supposedly fought for, is it? They wanted their freedom. They got their freedom. And it is a shitshow. It was that before obama took office. ME islamists are only really good at one thing. Shitshows.
I have no problem with people defending their families who had members that served. My nephew served. Evan Vela Carnahan. I am not going to debate his actions here. But I will debate the way his case was handled. It is my opinion that GWB's mishandling of the entire affair from the get go (the war) is unpardonable as far as his role as POTUS. Instead of sending a message it opened up the big tent for an extravaganza that islamists excel at.
I don't know how you kept off the list either. There is at least one other person on the list who is voting for Trump.
There was a rumor that Ted endorsed to get his internet bill through the Senate, well the GOP leaders and Democrats kept it out of the spending bill anyway.
Many people who agreed to vote for Trump got kicked off TOS, too. Apparently that is not enough to measure up.
This thread needs more alcohol :beer:
Not me. Last time I let someone put me on a list Ed McMahon loaded my mailbox....For the price of a stamp (rapidly approaching the price of a powerball ticket), You get a long shot crack at some money. The stuff dreams are made of.
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-3/publishers-clearing-house-edmcmahon.jpg)
Because he KNOWS Hillary will appoint the worst liberals imaginable and the thinks that there is a POSSIBILITY that the leftist nutcase might appoint someone good.
Just playin' the odds.
So that's how people rolled before the advent of the 12 Pack?
The Donald is my shepherd I shall not want
He maketh me to lie down in orange pastures
He leadeth me beside the still casinos
He restoreth my drink
Yea though I walk through the valley of the NeverTrumpers, I will fear no evil.
For thou art of the deal. Thy small rod and thy campaign staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a speech before mine enemies
Thou annoitest my head with toupee
Surely good polls shall follow
And thou shall dwell in the House of the White forever and ever.
Take note Trumpster 'sepia' shirt wearing Trump supporters I don't want you to miss anyone!
@Jazzhead
@INVAR
@Cripplecreek
@Catherine of Aragon
@skeeter
@jmyrlefuller
@Suppressed
@Night Hides Not
@Norm Lenhart
@catfish 1957
@Fantom
@sinkspur
@libertybele
@LMAO
@RAT Patrol .
@bigheadfred
@bilo
@musiclady
@Chosen Daughter
@Bigun
@mystery-ak
@mrpotatohead
@Emjay
@Victoria33
@Xena-Lee
@Sanguine
@Once-Ler
@txradioguy
@kartographer
@Smokin Joe
@montanajoe
@roamer_1
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.
What, you guys are having a party and I ain't invited?A few of us had to pipe up to get put on the list. (I think they were 'testing' the punch and spilled some on the original)
A few of us had to pipe up to get put on the list. (I think they were 'testing' the punch and spilled some on the original)
A few of us had to pipe up to get put on the list. (I think they were 'testing' the punch and spilled some on the original)I'm quite honored to be listed with so many thoughtful and eloquent posters, and yet a little disturbed by any list with such low standards as to include me.
Aw, it's alright... Ain't the first time I scribbled my name on the bottom of a guest list... :whistle:Too often of late, it has been a guest book for the family.
The Donald is my shepherd I shall not want
He maketh me to lie down in orange pastures
He leadeth me beside the still casinos
He restoreth my drink
Yea though I walk through the valley of the NeverTrumpers, I will fear no evil.
For thou art of the deal. Thy small rod and thy campaign staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a speech before mine enemies
Thou annoitest my head with toupee
Surely good polls shall follow
And thou shall dwell in the House of the White forever and ever.
What, you guys are having a party and I ain't invited?
They aren't my numbers. All those Iraqi deaths are meaningless. I like that. You make a very good case. Using your logic all the deaths accrued through the HOLOCAUST were meaningless. Congratulations.
I really wouldn't call that a potential WMD attack in the traditional sense. This was a plot to attack using sulfuric acid, which is an industrial chemical, not a WMD per se (like mustard gas).
You or I can order that off of Amazon.
I can't really tie that to any Iraqi WMD cache.
LOL. Thanks for the reminder. Yes, we do want to provide as much comfort and "safe space" to the village of the banned from Free Republic. Their feelings might get hurt, you know. I should be mindful of that. Wait a minute, I was reminded of that quite frequently by administration here. Don't upset the disgruntled Cruz supporters I was told.Thank you for the final bit of incentive I needed to put you on the ignore list.
After all Donald Trump beat Ted Cruz in the presidential primary. How unfair was that?
LOL. Thanks for the reminder. Yes, we do want to provide as much comfort and "safe space" to the village of the banned from Free Republic. Their feelings might get hurt, you know. I should be mindful of that. Wait a minute, I was reminded of that quite frequently by administration here. Don't upset the disgruntled Cruz supporters I was told.
After all Donald Trump beat Ted Cruz in the presidential primary. How unfair was that?
The only "safe space" defined here is the section at the top of the front page set aside for Trump supporters. The rest of the forum is open season on everybody, and you seem to resent it. There is no "safe space" for Never Trumpers that I know of. Maybe I missed something.
That sums up my position to a tee. A slim chance is better than none
The Donald is my shepherd I shall not want
He maketh me to lie down in orange pastures
He leadeth me beside the still casinos
He restoreth my drink
Yea though I walk through the valley of the NeverTrumpers, I will fear no evil.
For thou art of the deal. Thy small rod and thy campaign staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a speech before mine enemies
Thou annoitest my head with toupee
Surely good polls shall follow
And thou shall dwell in the House of the White forever and ever.
Really brilliant parody, 240B. I don't know if you are a professional writer but if you're not, you should be. Been re-reading again and again. Some great lines. "He restoreth my drink," what a memorable line!
Of course, writing about Donald Trump the material writes itself...especially given our location here at NeverTrump Central --tis where the loons gather at dusk to honk and chirp their dismay at the Trumpsters. I hope the Nevers enjoyed it as much as I did!
Again, kudos for giving us an enjoyable read.
Yeah, because comparing Trump to God certainly won't irritate or bother anyone, and might convince someone to support him. Are you really so self-unaware to not understand how you come across to normal people?
Yeah, because comparing Trump to God certainly won't irritate or bother anyone, and might convince someone to support him. Are you really so self-unaware to not understand how you come across to normal people?
Yeah, because comparing Trump to God certainly won't irritate or bother anyone, and might convince someone to support him. Are you really so self-unaware to not understand how you come across to normal people?I'm starting to think they're deliberately trolling us.
I seriously wonder if some of these people really are so unaware that they don't understand how repulsive their actions and words are to decent people.
Thank you for the final bit of incentive I needed to put you on the ignore list.
Now if people would stop using "Quote" when relplying to Aligncares posts I'd never know the charter member of the hateful eights was still around.
I'm starting to think they're deliberately trolling us.Nah. Couldn't be?
I've seen some posters use the quote function, but strip out the comment. That way you can click on the link if you want to read the original comment, but you don't have to see it unless you click. Seems like a neighborly way to treat those incendiary comments.
Cruz was interviewed on Glen Beck this morning. I just caught the last minute at most...he's supposed to review it in the next 30 min. Beck didn't sound too happy...bet he's going to rip Cruz a new one.
I listened to the complete interview:
Cruz's primary concerns are stopping Hillary Clinton and the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Cruz again made it publicly known that the Trump/campaign handed him a list of potential justices and on that list was Mike Lee who was requested to be on that list by Cruz via a meeting that he had with Pence. The meeting between Pence and Cruz was asking Cruz what it would take for him to come on board and the answer of course was Trump's commitment to appointment justices in line with Scalia including Mike Lee.
Glenn asked him how he could trust Trump and Cruz in essence said know one can be sure but we can be sure of what Hillary will do.
There was back and forth talk on compromising principles and Cruz's speech at the Convention. I agree with Beck that the time to dispute how the media interpreted what Cruz said would have been after the speech and not now.
Cruz admitted to 'renting' his supporters email addresses, etc., to Trump; which I think was 100% wrong even though Cruz said all candidates do it.
IMHO Cruz is keeping his word in voting for the Republican nominee and at the same time saw his only option as voting to stop Hillary as well as insuring as best he could tilting the Supreme Court to the right.
Just my opinion...
Take away a half-dozen of the above, as salvageable ....and it's exactly what I've pointed out.
No more than 1-1/2 to 2 dozen need to be shown the door in order to get The Briefing Room back on track.
Disagreements are nothing new...they are, in fact, encouraged, and further the debate.
But a lot of those pinged above are not worth a plug nickel. (interpreted as a "personal attack"?)
If The Briefing Room is to return to being a respectable and credible political forum...they need to go.
The administration here knows it.....I know it....and if you're honest...anybody reading this knows it too!
Yes. That's exactly what he's saying.
Funny thing is, I don't think a single person on that list wants to have him banned, just because he disagrees with us.
That's the fundamental difference between the Trump zealots and the rest of us who value freedom.
We don't want to silence dissent as they do. We don't think that our views should be the only ones permitted on this forum. We believe in free speech. We believe in the freedom of ideas and ideals.
I'm not sure how the chicken-egg thing works with the Trumpists. Did they not value freedom and thus were attracted to Trump, or did their attraction to Trump destroy their own values?
I don't think we'll ever know, but the thing we know for sure is that the Trump faithful want to shut the rest of us up.
I, for one, am PROUD to be on the list that values Conservatism and liberty. Being a target for this nasty group is sort of a red badge of courage for all of us.
The ones whom DC wants to banish from this forum are the ones I am honored to stand alongside.
"They hate everything America was built on. Conservatism, Principle and Christianity. they mock all three daily along with anyone standing up for them. They are far from unaware. It's intentional. It's what liberals do. No more, no less.
I listened to the complete interview:
Cruz's primary concerns are stopping Hillary Clinton and the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Cruz again made it publicly known that the Trump/campaign handed him a list of potential justices and on that list was Mike Lee who was requested to be on that list by Cruz via a meeting that he had with Pence. The meeting between Pence and Cruz was asking Cruz what it would take for him to come on board and the answer of course was Trump's commitment to appointment justices in line with Scalia including Mike Lee.
Glenn asked him how he could trust Trump and Cruz in essence said know one can be sure but we can be sure of what Hillary will do.
There was back and forth talk on compromising principles and Cruz's speech at the Convention. I agree with Beck that the time to dispute how the media interpreted what Cruz said would have been after the speech and not now.
Cruz admitted to 'renting' his supporters email addresses, etc., to Trump; which I think was 100% wrong even though Cruz said all candidates do it.
IMHO Cruz is keeping his word in voting for the Republican nominee and at the same time saw his only option as voting to stop Hillary as well as insuring as best he could tilting the Supreme Court to the right.
I guess that explains the mail I keep getting from the Trump campaign. It goes immediately into the shredder.
Thanks for the overview of the interview. I listened to Beck for a few minutes when he was describing his interview with Cruz....then he started ranting and raving and I had to turn it off.
FYI....don't ever buy a Visio tv.... I got the black screen of death this morning after roughly 2 years of use. What a piece of crap.....
Or, we're described thusly, by Mr. Passive Aggressive, @Norm Lenhart, "
Having difficulty reading for content? I didn't say the deaths were meaningless, only that your numbers purporting to blame those deaths on us were. Try to keep up.
Cruz was interviewed on Glen Beck this morning. I just caught the last minute at most...he's supposed to review it in the next 30 min. Beck didn't sound too happy...bet he's going to rip Cruz a new one.
My husband is off today, and we both listened. We looked at each other during the interview more than once and shook our heads.
Cruz was slippery and disingenuous. He is actually pushing the "binary choice" line now. Beck asked, "What were you doing at the convention with the "vote your conscience" thing? What about those of us who can't vote for either of them?" Ted responded that he doesn't agree with that point of view, that basically voting your conscience means voting for Trump because a third party can't win, and that he was never NeverTrump. (!!!) Now that is not true; he once said he couldn't support a man who attacked his wife.
And he said that his speech at the convention had nothing to do with not supporting Trump---it was just an attempt to reach out to the Trump campaign.
Beck was so upset that he said "g-damn" on air. Now I will admit I'm something of a hothead and I can react emotionally and prematurely at times, and I need time to cool off. I was angry when Cruz came out for Trump on Friday. I've had plenty of time to calm down, and I had decided that I would give Cruz the opportunity to explain himself. As far as I'm concerned, he made things worse. My husband is a calm, rational man who never reacts emotionally like me; after the interview I asked him if I was overreacting.
He said, "No. I don't know if he was always just another politician, but he certainly is now."
Now I know Cruz has a great conservative rating and has done some wonderful things, and I don't doubt he will continue to do so. But now I see he is, after all, just another politician. Dana Loesch, who supported him, said Friday in response to his Trump endorsement, "All politicians suck." Yeah. They do.
I've been accused of throwing Cruz under the bus, but I won't accept that. I don't owe my support to anyone. We've been saying all along that they have to earn our support, and that's true of Cruz, as well. I will not follow anyone blindly. Whether or not I would vote for him again is a moot issue, because I don't live in Texas and I think he has screwed his chances to run for president again. My husband and I have never contributed money to any candidate before, but we sent him a decent amount because we thought he was different. He threw us under the bus. Yeah, he does good things, but he is not who we thought he was. I guess it's true that Washington gets to all of them...it's a matter of degree and of how long it takes.
Cruz was absolutely terrible in that interview. Sleazy comes to mind.....but it doesn't effect the way I feel about Donny. I didn't hate Donny because of Cruz and I am not going to stop hating him because of Cruz either.
Donny is still a rat bastard.
No. Cruz caved into the pressure. He was bullied into it. He sold us out. Granted it is a strategic sellout rather than an issue sellout. But it is a sellout and for the first time I am very ashamed of him.
I'm curious -- how do you know that Cruz is not telling the truth on the Supreme Court issue? That he truly believes it is a critical issue, and that Trump is a better bet in that regard than is Hillary? Why are you assuming crass motives of personal self-interest?
I can understand disagreeing with his decision to support Trump. What I don't understand is assuming that he "sold out" rather than just reached that conclusion for the reasons he stated.
FYI....don't ever buy a Visio tv.... I got the black screen of death this morning after roughly 2 years of use. What a piece of crap.....
@Maj. Bill Martin
The problem is, Cruz is on record saying that Trump is a pathological liar who lies about everything. Beck and crew pressed him on that---asked why they believe him on the issue of the justices. His only response, and it was a lame one, was that Trump committed "publicly."
Every time we've seen Trump lie it's been public.
Yes, I heard it and I pretty much agree with him, but I don't like it one little bit.
My husband is off today, and we both listened. We looked at each other during the interview more than once and shook our heads.
Cruz was slippery and disingenuous. He is actually pushing the "binary choice" line now. Beck asked, "What were you doing at the convention with the "vote your conscience" thing? What about those of us who can't vote for either of them?" Ted responded that he doesn't agree with that point of view, that basically voting your conscience means voting for Trump because a third party can't win, and that he was never NeverTrump. (!!!) Now that is not true; he once said he couldn't support a man who attacked his wife.
And he said that his speech at the convention had nothing to do with not supporting Trump---it was just an attempt to reach out to the Trump campaign.
Beck was so upset that he said "g-damn" on air. Now I will admit I'm something of a hothead and I can react emotionally and prematurely at times, and I need time to cool off. I was angry when Cruz came out for Trump on Friday. I've had plenty of time to calm down, and I had decided that I would give Cruz the opportunity to explain himself. As far as I'm concerned, he made things worse. My husband is a calm, rational man who never reacts emotionally like me; after the interview I asked him if I was overreacting.
He said, "No. I don't know if he was always just another politician, but he certainly is now."
Now I know Cruz has a great conservative rating and has done some wonderful things, and I don't doubt he will continue to do so. But now I see he is, after all, just another politician. Dana Loesch, who supported him, said Friday in response to his Trump endorsement, "All politicians suck." Yeah. They do.
I've been accused of throwing Cruz under the bus, but I won't accept that. I don't owe my support to anyone. We've been saying all along that they have to earn our support, and that's true of Cruz, as well. I will not follow anyone blindly. Whether or not I would vote for him again is a moot issue, because I don't live in Texas and I think he has screwed his chances to run for president again. My husband and I have never contributed money to any candidate before, but we sent him a decent amount because we thought he was different. He threw us under the bus. Yeah, he does good things, but he is not who we thought he was. I guess it's true that Washington gets to all of them...it's a matter of degree and of how long it takes.
...
your side refers to Trump in a myriad of most disparaging ways: "Orange God", "Orange Julius", etc.
Yes, we're pretty much screwed.
@Maj. Bill Martin
The problem is, Cruz is on record saying that Trump is a pathological liar who lies about everything. Beck and crew pressed him on that---asked why they believe him on the issue of the justices. His only response, and it was a lame one, was that Trump committed "publicly."
Hey guys. Working today. Can't come out to play with everyone today.
@aligncare please stop. What I wrote was supposed to be lighthearted fun. Annoying maybe, but just fun. You are turning it into something malicious, which is not the intent at all. And you are pulling me in the pot with you.
We don't 'hate' anyone here. And we shouldn't troll. IMO
later
I've never thought of Cruz as anything other than a man, in a position to help make legislation, whom I happen to agree with 95% of the time.
As far as politicians go, that make him a rare commodity.
I never went in for personality cults, nor do I think there is such a thing as a political messiah. So I am not distraught at his recent statements.
I will continue to support the man in any way I can, and I think he will make a fantastic president.
I second that. I rarely use a TV...going months at a time without it on. So even though mine was over warranty when it died, it had seen minimal usage. Unbelievable.
I've gotten a Samsung to replace it, because of higher ratings. Not the features of the Visio, but I'm hoping it will last.
What I don't understand from your side is the apparently certainty that he will appoint someone equivalent to whom Hillary would appoint. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.
I'm starting to think they're deliberately trolling us.
Why don't you try to convince people of the rightness of Trump? Can you do that?
@Maj. Bill Martin
The problem is, Cruz is on record saying that Trump is a pathological liar who lies about everything. Beck and crew pressed him on that---asked why they believe him on the issue of the justices. His only response, and it was a lame one, was that Trump committed "publicly."
Every time we've seen Trump lie it's been public.
It's simple for me. Trump lies habitually and he hasn't the first clue about conservative principles.
The man recently said he doesn't care if the Senate goes Democrat. I see no reason why I should expect him to appoint decent judges.
Yes, we're pretty much screwed.
But that still does not explain the certainty that his appointment will be as bad as Hillary's. Again, there is a pretty huge difference between "I don't trust him" and "I trust him to do exactly the wrong thing."
I wish. That would be more fun. I feel we are being turned on a spit over an open fire.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61gE46fvPqL._SX450_.jpg)
You NEVER post ANY policy position of Trump's. Just attacks on #NeverTrump.
Why don't you try to convince people of the rightness of Trump? Can you do that? Can you keep up with your boy's constantly-shifting positions?
Donald Trump's running for president, not Saint.
Since the start of his campaign they've been screaming about his tone. That's the kernel of NeverTrump's complaints – his mean-spirited insults. ...the rest has been just partisan political noise and deceptive headlines on political fora that always turned out to be lies.
Donald Trump has built an incredible, stable, growing, prosperous company for 40 years. Imagine the temperament required to build a 100-story skyscraper, one after another after another, across the globe. You can't do that unless you're a serious, focused person.
Employees don't quit him. Of the thousands of people who've worked for him, no ex-employee is suing him or is in the media thrashing him – in fact, just the opposite. Friends in his circle have only praise for Donald Trump. You just can't achieve that level of success if you're crazy, stupid or racist as his critics claim.
As for his personal life, how many of you throwing stones have been divorced? Or, when you were young and stupid had an affair? Or shot your mouth off? Or exaggerated your tennis game or your fielding in baseball?
Partisan political noise is all we get from Hillary Clinton and #NeverTrump.
I second that. I rarely use a TV...going months at a time without it on. So even though mine was over warranty when it died, it had seen minimal usage. Unbelievable.@mrpotatohead
I've gotten a Samsung to replace it, because of higher ratings. Not the features of the Visio, but I'm hoping it will last.
Apparently....Cruz thinks that Trump's feet can and will be held to the fire on his campaign promises. Unfortunately, with 'this' current crop in Congress, that will never happen. Cruz is naïve to think otherwise. But ...in my opinion...he is still an honest man. Probably the last and/or only one in DC now. It's a dying (if not dead already) breed.
Apparently....Cruz thinks that Trump's feet can and will be held to the fire on his campaign promises. Unfortunately, with 'this' current crop in Congress, that will never happen. Cruz is naïve to think otherwise. But ...in my opinion...he is still an honest man. Probably the last and/or only one in DC now. It's a dying (if not dead already) breed.
@XenaLee
Beck repeatedly asked Cruz what new information he had that made Trump preferential to Clinton. Ted gave the false "binary choice" argument. Beck pressed him, "But you knew all of that at the convention. What changed? I'm asking what new information you have." And he never received a straight response.
I think he's a solid conservative but I no longer think he's the only man in Washington who hasn't been changed.
Can yu direct me to any position Donny has held to over the last 5 years? Last year? Last 2 months?
But that still does not explain the certainty that his appointment will be as bad as Hillary's. Again, there is a pretty huge difference between "I don't trust him" and "I trust him to do exactly the wrong thing."
See my response to XenaLee above.
In the short time available to me, here's a post from a few hours ago on another thread. And if you go back to June, July, August '15 you'll see 100s of posts detailing research on Donald Trump's positives. You know full well I have posted in favor of his talents, his strengths, his qualifications for the job as president.
@XenaLee
Beck repeatedly asked Cruz what new information he had that made Trump preferential to Clinton. Ted gave the false "binary choice" argument. Beck pressed him, "But you knew all of that at the convention. What changed? I'm asking what new information you have." And he never received a straight response.
I think he's a solid conservative but I no longer think he's the only man in Washington who hasn't been changed.
@Maj. Bill Martin
I trust every liberal to do exactly the wrong thing, and that's what Trump is.
he said he doesn't care if the Senate goes Democrat, and last July he admitted to Joe Scarborough that he's a Democrat in a lot of ways. I'm not going to delude myself about him.
I've never seen you post a single qualification. Building buildings is not a qualification any more than giving speeches is a qualification.In the short attention span theater that is the American news cycle, if he stays on script he might pull it off. Hillary is hitting him hard with her ads, and they use him talking against him.
And as for pooh-poohing his obscene behavior over the last 15 months--that is the essence of the man. When he can act as he wants, he insults, is rude, lies, is boorish and condescending.
His chief economist just released Trump's trade and economic growth plan. Peter Navarro is the economist and he is confused about the meaning of GDP and what goes into it. How can Trump hire somebody who doesn't even know the basics of economics?
I don't see anything from any of you guys except links to Trump's website, which is horribly outdated by now with all the changes Trump has made. I post article after article by serious people who have real problems with his policies and I see no counter to any of it from Trump supporters.
We are now entering the last phase of Trump's con: he is going to try to make low-info, middle-of-the-road voters forget all his obscene antics from the last six months by acting like a normal human being. And it may work.
God help us if it does.
Cruz endorsed Romney too.
Perhaps those who are calling him so principled, believe that applies only when his principles agrees with their's.
No. Which is exactly why you cannot be sure that his appointments will be as bad as Hillary's. The uncertainty we get with Trump is better than the certainty of what we get with Hillary.
I've never seen you post a single qualification. Building buildings is not a qualification any more than giving speeches is a qualification.
And as for pooh-poohing his obscene behavior over the last 15 months--that is the essence of the man. When he can act as he wants, he insults, is rude, lies, is boorish and condescending.
His chief economist just released Trump's trade and economic growth plan. Peter Navarro is the economist and he is confused about the meaning of GDP and what goes into it. How can Trump hire somebody who doesn't even know the basics of economics?
I don't see anything from any of you guys except links to Trump's website, which is horribly outdated by now with all the changes Trump has made. I post article after article by serious people who have real problems with his policies and I see no counter to any of it from Trump supporters.
We are now entering the last phase of Trump's con: he is going to try to make low-info, middle-of-the-road voters forget all his obscene antics from the last six months by acting like a normal human being. And it may work.
God help us if it does.
He is NOT naive! He knows better but he also knows that it is impossible to run a campaign without money. He caved because the big money forced him to!
@XenaLee
Beck repeatedly asked Cruz what new information he had that made Trump preferential to Clinton. Ted gave the false "binary choice" argument. Beck pressed him, "But you knew all of that at the convention. What changed? I'm asking what new information you have." And he never received a straight response.
I think he's a solid conservative but I no longer think he's the only man in Washington who hasn't been changed.
So he is as consistent and predictable as Hillary is in terms of what he'll do in office? Rather than argue with that myself, I'll just point out that a lot of other nevertrumpers condemn him because he is unpredictable and cannot be trusted.
Can't you see that you are being incredibly selective about what you choose to believe? Was he being truthful when he said those things to Scarborough, or just trying to pander to MSNBC voters? I don't think you're being consistent in rejecting everything conservative he says as being disingenuous, but accepting everything he says that is liberal as reflecting his actual views. If he is not trustworthy, then both the conservative and the liberal things he says cannot be trusted as reflecting his true views.
My guess - and that's really all it can be at this point -- is that he's a basic East Coast, Rockefeller Republican. That is not ever a POV I have espoused, but I see it as preferable to the hard leftism, particularly on social issues, that we'd get from Hillary. But in any case, that still remains just a guess. Which leads me right back to preferring the unpredictable, untrustworthy to someone I can predict and trust to do exactly the wrong things.
There were two things that changed; Cruz received a commitment from the Trump campaign regarding the justices and including Lee's name and Trump's support of his fight for the internet. That was it.
Well, I have yet to watch that interview (will endeavor to do so) so I can't speak on it until then.
As for Cruz no longer being the only man in Washington who hasn't been changed...perhaps we are expecting the impossible of him. In DC, there really IS something in the water. And sooner or later...
everyone must partake of that something.
Bottom line, this election year looks to be historic in every way. It's looking more and more like we will be left completely leaderless when all is said and done. Time to find 'new' leaders then.
Selective? Seriously? I'm taking the man at his word.
You, apparently, are trying to invest him with qualities you want him to have.
Trump doesn't have a single accomplishment for the cause of conservatism under his belt. He does have a history of defending, praising, and donating to Hillary Clinton.
And he's a practiced con man who is very good at telling people what they want to hear.
@XenaLee
I'm beginning to think that's the case, yes.
Yep. The culture is badly broken if those two are the best we could find.
@libertybele
But again, and as Beck asked, why would Cruz believe a man he said lies about everything? His response that it was a "public" commitment makes no sense, since Trump lies publicly as easily as the rest of us breathe.
Besides, what happened to that earlier list of judges Trump submitted? That was a public commitment, too.
Mike Lee--who still refuses to support Trump---said that he does not want to be a justice and it isn't going to happen.
Cruz could have thanked Trump for his support for the internet bill without endorsing him, IMO. Regardless, the interview this morning was very bad.
@mrpotatoheadThanks @Smokin Joe ....I'm heading to Sam's in a bit for a replacement.
We have had good luck with Sanyo TVs, FWIW.
Take note Trumpster 'sepia' shirt wearing Trump supporters I don't want you to miss anyone!Thanks. Me, too.
@Jazzhead
@INVAR
@Cripplecreek
@Catherine of Aragon
@skeeter
@jmyrlefuller
@Suppressed
@Night Hides Not
@Norm Lenhart
@catfish 1957
@Fantom
@sinkspur
@libertybele
@LMAO
@RAT Patrol .
@bigheadfred
@bilo
@musiclady
@Chosen Daughter
@Bigun
@mystery-ak
@mrpotatohead
@Emjay
@Victoria33
@Xena-Lee
@Sanguine
@Once-Ler
@txradioguy
@kartographer
@Smokin Joe
@montanajoe
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.
Well, I have yet to watch that interview (will endeavor to do so) so I can't speak on it until then.It's the bugs...
As for Cruz no longer being the only man in Washington who hasn't been changed...perhaps we are expecting the impossible of him. In DC, there really IS something in the water. And sooner or later...
everyone must partake of that something.
Bottom line, this election year looks to be historic in every way. It's looking more and more like we will be left completely leaderless when all is said and done. Time to find 'new' leaders then.More seriously, you're right.
Take note Trumpster 'sepia' shirt wearing Trump supporters I don't want you to miss anyone!
@Jazzhead
@INVAR
@Cripplecreek
@Catherine of Aragon
@skeeter
@jmyrlefuller
@Suppressed
@Night Hides Not
@Norm Lenhart
@catfish 1957
@Fantom
@sinkspur
@libertybele
@LMAO
@RAT Patrol .
@bigheadfred
@bilo
@musiclady
@Chosen Daughter
@Bigun
@mystery-ak
@mrpotatohead
@Emjay
@Victoria33
@Xena-Lee
@Sanguine
@Once-Ler
@txradioguy
@kartographer
@Smokin Joe
@montanajoe
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.
Yep. The culture is badly broken if those two are the best we could find.
Take note Trumpster 'sepia' shirt wearing Trump supporters I don't want you to miss anyone!
True that.
@skeeter
First off, skeeter, I want to get something clear here. I've never thought of Cruz as anything but a man, either. I believed he was a man who would always stand for principle. And as I posted, I was angry on Friday--I admit it freely. But I've cooled off, and I am not "distraught." I wanted to hear some straight talk from Cruz; I was open to it. I got the opposite instead. And I won't try to spin it otherwise.
It's because I don't do personality cults that I refuse to spin it. If Ted ran for president, yeah, I'd vote for him because--as I said---he has an excellent conservative rating.
What I am saying is that he isn't quite the principled man I thought. Not if he's pushing that "binary choice" crap, or trying to say he was never NeverTrump when he said otherwise, or that his principled stand at the convention had nothing to do with Trump and that voting your conscience means voting for that dumpster fire. I just will not spin that. And I won't apologize for it.
I spent a lot of time defending him to family and friends as a different kind of guy in Washington. This morning I heard a slippery politician. It is what it is.
I hope this goes through....the site keeps timing out for me.
@CatherineofAragon
So he is as consistent and predictable as Hillary is in terms of what he'll do in office? Rather than argue with that myself, I'll just point out that a lot of other nevertrumpers condemn him because he is unpredictable and cannot be trusted.
Can't you see that you are being incredibly selective about what you choose to believe? Was he being truthful when he said those things to Scarborough, or just trying to pander to MSNBC voters? I don't think you're being consistent in rejecting everything conservative he says as being disingenuous, but accepting everything he says that is liberal as reflecting his actual views. If he is not trustworthy, then both the conservative and the liberal things he says cannot be trusted as reflecting his true views.True enough, you can't trust what he says, as noted above. That means you have to go by what he does.
My guess - and that's really all it can be at this point -- is that he's a basic East Coast, Rockefeller Republican. That is not ever a POV I have espoused, but I see it as preferable to the hard leftism, particularly on social issues, that we'd get from Hillary. But in any case, that still remains just a guess. Which leads me right back to preferring the unpredictable, untrustworthy to someone I can predict and trust to do exactly the wrong things.Who do you know?
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”Sun Tsu
ETA: I should add that early in this campaign season, I told some liberal friends that Trump would probably end up being more liberal than they probably expected on issues like health care, and that he probably wouldn't be as bad from their perspective as they were thinking at that time. They responded by saying that the liberal quotes attributed to him were just an act, and that he really didn't believe that stuff. The exact flip side of the argument you are making here.See? No one believes the guy.
Cruz is imploding.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/9zA9uLCuGqScM/giphy.gif)
It's the bugs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZQW4-L9tp8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZQW4-L9tp8)
Great series if you caught it... :laugh:More seriously, you're right.
I am not sure how much the smear campaign thrown at Cruz hurt, but imho, this won't help.
Lee said he wasn't interested in SCOTUS before this was announced, so I doubt that is the motivation, and Trump's penchant for lying would devalue any promises made, public or private.
We live in interesting times.
We keep looking under the same rocks for leaders, and all we find are the same old bugs... Time to look somewhere else.
Pro aborts? What warm, dark orifice did you pull that out of? If you are calling the people on that list "pro-aborts", yes perhaps moderator intervention is called for. Against you.
I guess, we should call that kind of a list a list of pro-aborts what Kartographer did if this is tit-for-tat. And I would ask for moderator intervention possibly on K posting this kind of stuff that belies any conservative foundation in my view; and is name calling once again.
That is a great GIF to illustrate what Trump has done to Conservatism itself.
In the rubble and ashes is a new Populist Statist Nationalism that demands obeisance.
Per "sepia shirt" wearing, this is real hate mongering. The usual "lesser of evils" argument wasn't enough.
Pro aborts? What warm, dark orifice did you pull that out of? If you are calling the people on that list "pro-aborts", yes perhaps moderator intervention is called for. Against you.
And quite deliberately so. As a lifelong (up until 2011) Democrat supporting liberal, his mission is almost accomplished. The next two months will finish it (and us), quite probably.
How? How did the "big money" force him to endorse Trump? Do you know this for a fact, or are you best-guessing here?
Purely conjecture on my part but it is based on having seen how the game is played from the inside out myself.
I suspect the conversations went somewhat along the lines of "You are going to be running for your Senate seat again soon aren't you? Well if you want to see the kind of money then that you saw from us last time we would strongly suggest that you need to ..."
Purely conjecture on my part but it is based on having seen how the game is played from the inside out myself.Sadly, I think he could have gathered contributions from all over the country to cover that had he stick to his guns. But I wouldn't put it past the GOPe to threaten to fund a primary challenger, either.
I suspect the conversations went somewhat along the lines of "You are going to be running for your Senate seat again soon aren't you? Well if you want to see the kind of money then that you saw from us last time we would strongly suggest that you need to ..."
Purely conjecture on my part but it is based on having seen how the game is played from the inside out myself.
I suspect the conversations went somewhat along the lines of "You are going to be running for your Senate seat again soon aren't you? Well if you want to see the kind of money then that you saw from us last time we would strongly suggest that you need to ..."
Purely conjecture on my part but it is based on having seen how the game is played from the inside out myself.
I suspect the conversations went somewhat along the lines of "You are going to be running for your Senate seat again soon aren't you? Well if you want to see the kind of money then that you saw from us last time we would strongly suggest that you need to ..."
I have heard that Ted C still has $20 million in his campaign funds. He probably doesn't need more to win re-election.
It's simple for me. Trump lies habitually and he hasn't the first clue about conservative principles.
@Mesaclone @INVAR
While this statement was directed to another poster, I will tell you that I read plenty of books. And I'd like to suggest one to you -- Under the Axe of Fascism -- written by an economist who lived under Mussolini and escaped to become a professor at Harvard: Gaetano Salvemini. In it, you can see how Mussolini tried out the policies that Mr. Trump loves so much. And you can see why those of us who do know history have fought so bitterly to try to prevent a repeat here in America.
Principles are immovable and unchangeable, despite what unprincipled zealots insist. That so many believe principles can be compromised for the sake of the 'better good' explains how it is that the Constitution itself has been eroded to the point of irrelevance and how we lost the Republic to whatever this Statist mobocracy is that we now exist under.
Even this cat doesn't like Trump:
Sadly, I think he could have gathered contributions from all over the country to cover that had he stick to his guns. But I wouldn't put it past the GOPe to threaten to fund a primary challenger, either.
Trump qualifications for POTUS:
Natural born citizen
At least 35 years of age
Inhabitant of the US for at least 14 years
Yup. He qualifies.
Has everyone forgotten that Trump himself vowed to make sure that Cruz didn't retain his Senate seat? He stated that about both Cruz and Kasich.
Pro aborts? What warm, dark orifice did you pull that out of? If you are calling the people on that list "pro-aborts", yes perhaps moderator intervention is called for. Against you.Abortion has always been the red herring of phony conservatives. They know full well that there is nothing they can do to change the current stance of the federal courts; even pro-life judges must respect the precedent of Roe v. Wade before the Senate will even consider confirming them. Who we elect as President matters little in that regard.
Abortion has always been the red herring of phony conservatives. They know full well that there is nothing they can do to change the current stance of the federal courts; even pro-life judges must respect the precedent of Roe v. Wade before the Senate will even consider confirming them. Who we elect as President matters little in that regard.
We cannot change anything regarding abortion until our nation collectively recognizes the cold, hard fact that, regardless of semantics, abortion is killing one's own young in the womb. That is undeniable. We're not at that point; if we were, places like Planned Parenthood would already be out of business. Only then will we have a Senate that will confirm judges that will discard this precedent.
Abortion is a red herring used to divide the conservatives from the libertarians, which serves only one good: the furthering of Big Government statism.
@TomSea
Abortion has always been the red herring of phony conservatives. They know full well that there is nothing they can do to change the current stance of the federal courts; even pro-life judges must respect the precedent of Roe v. Wade before the Senate will even consider confirming them. Who we elect as President matters little in that regard.I'll echo Cyber Liberty's sentiments. Brilliant post Sir!
We cannot change anything regarding abortion until our nation collectively recognizes the cold, hard fact that, regardless of semantics, abortion is killing one's own young in the womb. That is undeniable. We're not at that point; if we were, places like Planned Parenthood would already be out of business. Only then will we have a Senate that will confirm judges that will discard this precedent.
Abortion is a red herring used to divide the conservatives from the libertarians, which serves only one good: the furthering of Big Government statism.
@TomSea
But the division is the fault of the baby killers, not those who are pro-life. The fault is also with the libertarians who are fine and dandy with their own life being protected by do not care if an innocent child is protected. There is no compromise here. I will never vote for someone who is fine with abortion. Never. The right to life of the innocent is fundamental.
Trump qualifications for POTUS:
Natural born citizen
At least 35 years of age
Inhabitant of the US for at least 14 years
Yup. He qualifies.
Has everyone forgotten that Trump himself vowed to make sure that Cruz didn't retain his Senate seat? He stated that about both Cruz and Kasich.Nope, I haven't forgotten. Trump even said he'd fund a primary challenge.
But the division is the fault of the baby killers, not those who are pro-life. The fault is also with the libertarians who are fine and dandy with their own life being protected by do not care if an innocent child is protected. There is no compromise here. I will never vote for someone who is fine with abortion. Never. The right to life of the innocent is fundamental.Agreed!
..that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among those Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...
Ted Cruz miss your list? Newt Gingrich? Rick Perry? Scott Walker? 2012 Constitution Candidate Virgil Goode? Jerry Falwell Jr.? Clint Eastwood? Donald Rumsfield?
What a joke, thanks for the laughs.
I guess, we should call that kind of a list a list of pro-aborts what Kartographer did if this is tit-for-tat. And I would ask for moderator intervention possibly on K posting this kind of stuff that belies any conservative foundation in my view; and is name calling once again.
Per "sepia shirt" wearing, this is real hate mongering. The usual "lesser of evils" argument wasn't enough.
I was speaking for myself, I did not intend to characterize anyone else.
I look at Cruz's behavior differently - it seems as though he IS acting from principle. The SCOTUS is his thing, and he's trying to do whatever is within his power at this point to see that constitutionalists have a voice on it.
Of course he's running the risk of looking foolish or duplicitous here, given what has gone on before. He is in a very difficult political position.
Even this cat doesn't like Trump:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyYDmTx4pzE
But the division is the fault of the baby killers, not those who are pro-life. The fault is also with the libertarians who are fine and dandy with their own life being protected by do not care if an innocent child is protected. There is no compromise here. I will never vote for someone who is fine with abortion. Never. The right to life of the innocent is fundamental.I understand this. There comes a point, however, where one has to consider the best way to protect those rights and increase our ability to do so. Right now the "cudgel" approach simply outlawing it isn't yet viable.
Abortion has always been the red herring of phony conservatives. They know full well that there is nothing they can do to change the current stance of the federal courts; even pro-life judges must respect the precedent of Roe v. Wade before the Senate will even consider confirming them. Who we elect as President matters little in that regard.
We cannot change anything regarding abortion until our nation collectively recognizes the cold, hard fact that, regardless of semantics, abortion is killing one's own young in the womb. That is undeniable. We're not at that point; if we were, places like Planned Parenthood would already be out of business. Only then will we have a Senate that will confirm judges that will discard this precedent.
Abortion is a red herring used to divide the conservatives from the libertarians, which serves only one good: the furthering of Big Government statism.
@TomSea
Pro aborts? What warm, dark orifice did you pull that out of? If you are calling the people on that list "pro-aborts", yes perhaps moderator intervention is called for. Against you.
:hands:
@jmyrlefuller
I'm glad to know that Rand Paul and Ron Paul are phony conservatives according to your opinion. :silly:
You can't make this stuff up, no siree.
I understand this. There comes a point, however, where one has to consider the best way to protect those rights and increase our ability to do so. Right now the "cudgel" approach simply outlawing it isn't yet viable.
What we can—and should—do from a government standpoint is defund to the greatest extent possible. Here is where libertarians and conservatives have common ground: libertarians (even those who are "pro-choice") see it as a waste of money, and conservatives see it as a travesty. The courts have next to no authority to allocate federal funds.
I would never support a candidate who makes it part of their platform to explicitly support and subsidize abortion. Believe it or not, there are a few politicians (ahem, Andrew Cuomo) who hold that stance. But if it came down to a big-government statist who passed himself or herself off as "pro-life" and a limited-government libertarian who is more or less indifferent to abortion, I'd be much more inclined to vote for the libertarian—not because I think the life of the young is any less important, but because the numerous problems we have with government that can be fixed through policy changes are better suited to the libertarian's strengths.
The fight for life is going to be a long war. Sadly, we'll lose some along the way while it is fought. However, I would rather set the stage for a total victory than rush into a Pyrrhic one that we ultimately lose for good.
Both Pauls would tell you they are not "conservatives," they are libertarians. And I didn't make that up.
I consider myself a Crunchy-Con—that is, a conservative who likes, enjoys, and wants to conserve the environment.- Rand Paul
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/rand-paul-im-a-crunchy-con/
@TomSea , you are doing an excellent job of proving @jmyrlefuller 's point that certain issues are being used to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians. Mock it if you must.
@TomSea , you are doing an excellent job of proving @jmyrlefuller 's point that certain issues are being used to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians. Mock it if you must.
All very well said. Taking an absolutist position that loses at the polls may result in more subsidizing of abortions by Democrats who get elected on that issue -- the vote is moral but the result is not. I agree with you -- it is a very important issue, but we are not even close to the point at which it can be made illegal, and Roe v. Wade overturned.
Sadly, I think he could have gathered contributions from all over the country to cover that had he stick to his guns. But I wouldn't put it past the GOPe to threaten to fund a primary challenger, either.
Ron Paul nor Rand Paul, both of whom are pro-life, put abortion before every other plank of their platform.
What I'm talking about here is the use of abortion as a wedge—the idea that if a politician is very effective and right with day-to-day policy (fiscal discipline, citizen freedoms, effective and efficient defense, etc.), but is not sufficiently anti-abortion, then that should disqualify him. Mike Huckabee is a perfect example. The more anti-abortion one is, the more Huckabee will support you (there were few more fervent backers of Todd Akin than Huckabee was), at the expense of every other issue.
Our government faces a lot of issues that need to be fixed; some can be remedied immediately, and some we may have to hold on a while before we can fix them. In the meantime, if our candidates are neutral on those other issues, it at least buys us time.
@skeeter
I apologize for jumping and thinking you were speaking about me or anyone else.
I respect your position.
As I respect your's. No apology necessary.
I just hope this whole roll in the mud with Trump didn't effectively ruin the career of one of the very few voices we have in the senate.
If you want a really good laugh go to giphy.com and just search "Trump." So funny.
We were told we can't put funny gifs on the debate thread. That of course made me want to go look for funny gifs. So here you go:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l46CahdcL5yYTaQiQ/giphy.gif)
I heard from a family member that Reince Priebus was interviewed today on Hannity, I think. Anyway according to them, Priebus did say that Cruz would have lost GOP support if he didn't fulfill his pledge to support Trump. Evidently he suggested the ones that didn't, such as Bush and Kasich, will not be receiving support. This helps explain why Cruz did what he did. I didn't hear the show.There was a story on here that noted Priebus saying the same thing—that suggested that the RNC may even ban them from running for the GOP nod in 2020. It was one of those "I'm not threatening anyone, I'm just saying we had rules and a pledge" sort of thing (kind of like "I'm not saying Rafael Cruz was part of the JFK assassination, but it is there in the paper"). Jeb left 2016 with his tail between his legs, so that threat doesn't mean much in his case, but for Cruz and Kasich it would be a bigger deal as they might be contenders by that time. Sure enough, a couple days after that threat, Cruz endorsed Trump.
There was a story on here that noted Priebus saying the same thing—that suggested that the RNC may even ban them from running for the GOP nod in 2020. It was one of those "I'm not threatening anyone, I'm just saying we had rules and a pledge" sort of thing (kind of like "I'm not saying Rafael Cruz was part of the JFK assassination, but it is there in the paper"). Jeb left 2016 with his tail between his legs, so that threat doesn't mean much in his case, but for Cruz and Kasich it would be a bigger deal as they might be contenders by that time. Sure enough, a couple days after that threat, Cruz endorsed Trump.@jmyrlefuller
I said "I guess we can call that... to be tit for tat"I am not going against 'pro-lifers'.
But as usual, we've been through the nasty personal attacks before with smokin' Joe, let alone, no comment on the odious post by Kartographer and putting words into others mouths to slime others, I won't back down.
Yep, pro-aborts it is. I won't be turning my back on the unborn, if it is more important to go against pro-lifers, that's your choice.
I heard from a family member that Reince Priebus was interviewed today on Hannity, I think. Anyway according to them, Priebus did say that Cruz would have lost GOP support if he didn't fulfill his pledge to support Trump. Evidently he suggested the ones that didn't, such as Bush and Kasich, will not be receiving support. This helps explain why Cruz did what he did. I didn't hear the show.
Thanks for that information, @mrpotatohead. It's definitely something to keep in mind.
Though Cruz came out with a statement saying Trump was the big winner last night, and there's such a clear difference between him and Clinton, and we have to vote for Trump, etc., etc. Ted just keeps digging.
There was a story on here that noted Priebus saying the same thing—that suggested that the RNC may even ban them from running for the GOP nod in 2020. It was one of those "I'm not threatening anyone, I'm just saying we had rules and a pledge" sort of thing (kind of like "I'm not saying Rafael Cruz was part of the JFK assassination, but it is there in the paper"). Jeb left 2016 with his tail between his legs, so that threat doesn't mean much in his case, but for Cruz and Kasich it would be a bigger deal as they might be contenders by that time. Sure enough, a couple days after that threat, Cruz endorsed Trump.
It is a leap of faith for Cruz to hope the GOP honors its promise. Look for them to support either Kasich or Bush next cycle. They'll find some other reason not to support Cruz, I'm afraid.
@CatherineofAragon Well, Cruz was pretty well painted into a corner, and had to decide who he'd rather piss off. We see how that came out.
Thanks for that information, @mrpotatohead. It's definitely something to keep in mind.
Though Cruz came out with a statement saying Trump was the big winner last night, and there's such a clear difference between him and Clinton, and we have to vote for Trump, etc., etc. Ted just keeps digging.
@skeeter I think Cruz may be more concerned with whether or not the GOP backs him in his reelection for Senate run in '18. I'd be surprised if he even ran for President again.
Two things ... either Cruz needs big donor money and is indeed running for re-election in '18 and the presidency in '20 and is playing the game that's needed to play or it goes even deeper than that and he's been threatened or his family has been threatened. I'm leaning towards the later for the simple reason he had a tremendous ground game and was able to raise an enormous amount of money just from his supporters. IMHO I don't think Ted will be seeking re-election or the presidency.
@Cyber Liberty, yes, that's definitely a point. But he did an interview with Hugh Hewitt in which he said that people who oppose him supporting Trump are liberal Republicans.
I don't like that. At all.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/senator-ted-cruz-last-nights-debate-endorsement-donald-trump/ (http://www.hughhewitt.com/senator-ted-cruz-last-nights-debate-endorsement-donald-trump/)
I agree. I think that despite his late-endorsement - the long knives are out and the GOP is going to do a Thad Cochran on Cruz in '18. Cruz has to know that, but he is the kid pleading with his abusive daddy not to spank him, he promises that 'he'll be good'.
I do not know how much more clear it can be made to Cruz and Conservatives - but the GOP wants us OUT and GONE from their party. The Establishment threw in with Trump - even though he was not groomed in their club stables, because they realized Trump would do for them what they could not do on their own: wipe out and get rid of the 'dead weight' of Principled Conservatives from "holding them back" from their pursuit of controlling big government central control that they think they can better manage. The GOP went full Democrat Left and made their uniparty alignment self-evident to anyone who sees clearly.
Cruz would have a better chance of a future if he dumped the GOP and signed onto the Constitution Party and helped them build a movement from there.
The GOP is like the Lusitania - been torpedoed by Trump and the Democrats and it is going down despite whatever music Cruz and his band is furiously playing up on deck to try and keep everyone's spirits up.
Two things ... either Cruz needs big donor money and is indeed running for re-election in '18 and the presidency in '20 and is playing the game that's needed to play or it goes even deeper than that and he's been threatened or his family has been threatened. I'm leaning towards the later for the simple reason he had a tremendous ground game and was able to raise an enormous amount of money just from his supporters. IMHO I don't think Ted will be seeking re-election or the presidency.I can see Cruz running for the senate again, but not for president. He just doesn't have the personality for it. Plus the fact that after the Trump debacle, no conservative will ever stand a chance of being president.
Not only Cruz, but Rush, Levin - the whole panoply of Conservative voices have bought into a fraud who is single-handedly destroying their reputations and credibility and they are so blinded by their self-importance or fear of Hillary that they cannot see they just committed seppeku and diminished forever their standing in the eyes of actual Principled Conservatives.
I'll never listen to Limbaugh again and I'll never trust Cruz with a vote. They are simply party hacks, and perhaps they always were.
Not only Cruz, but Rush, Levin - the whole panoply of Conservative voices have bought into a fraud who is single-handedly destroying their reputations and credibility and they are so blinded by their self-importance or fear of Hillary that they cannot see they just committed seppeku and diminished forever their standing in the eyes of actual Principled Conservatives.
I'll never listen to Limbaugh again and I'll never trust Cruz with a vote. They are simply party hacks, and perhaps they always were.
I can see Cruz running for the senate again, but not for president. He just doesn't have the personality for it. Plus the fact that after the Trump debacle, no conservative will ever stand a chance of being president.
I can see Cruz running for the senate again, but not for president. He just doesn't have the personality for it. Plus the fact that after the Trump debacle, no conservative will ever stand a chance of being president.
I wouldn't cross the street to watch an interview with a politician not involved in an election in which I'm voting. Cruz ceased being that months ago. I wish him luck in his Senate reelection, but I really don't care anymore what he thinks about Trump or the voters in this election. Interviewers who are having these conversations don't seem to be interested in casting light, they're playing the game and trying to generate ratings by driving wedges. Even Hugh.
There's too much going on that matters.
I hope to see him stay in the Senate, we need him there. The people I hear running him down for his lukewarm support of Trump are people who don't live in his state, so Eff 'em.
@Cyber Liberty
No, just people who gave money to his primary run, supported him and voted for him, so I'll make my opinion of him known whenever I damn well please.
@INVAR
Politics is really turning me off...and not just lately. The GOP could run a sack of chicken feed for president, and everybody would yammer about unity and supporting the candidate.
@CatherineofAragon
@Cyber Liberty
Come on guys. Shake hands.
Cyber, it was the "eff-em" that got her (my guess). That's all. I was wondering a little about that myself, since I am mad at him, too. But I know you enough to figure you're entitled to trash my opinion once in awhile. I don't see it that way. This was such a far deeper issue than just Cruz choosing his candidate. We have defended that man for months and months against the vile attacks of Team Trump. Now this? We have weathered our own attacks. Now this? No, it is a betrayal and there is no getting around that. We all may differ on where to go from here. But I will insult no one for feeling betrayed by Cruz.
They're already running a sack of chickenshtuff...
Not only Cruz, but Rush, Levin - the whole panoply of Conservative voices have bought into a fraud who is single-handedly destroying their reputations and credibility and they are so blinded by their self-importance or fear of Hillary that they cannot see they just committed seppeku and diminished forever their standing in the eyes of actual Principled Conservatives.
Oh. LOL. Well that's good. There is a drawback to thread debating in that you usually click on the last thing said and read backward. So if there is clarification of a comment further up, it might be missed.
Thanks for setting that straight.
Feelings are running high this election. My own wife would not talk to me one night because I wouldn't get on the Trump Train. Still a little standoffish because I'm a reluctant voter.
I am trying to guess where my husband would have been on this issue. I am pretty sure he would despise Trump. My husband was a gentleman. One thing I can thank his mother for, she raised him to be respectful, especially of women. He would have been appalled at Trump for that alone. Now, my husband was a bigger talk radio fan than I was and he may have been influenced by that. But then he would have had me setting him straight on it, so....I cannot imagine he would have be a Trumpster. Not even for strategy.
Feelings are running high this election. My own wife would not talk to me one night because I wouldn't get on the Trump Train. Still a little standoffish because I'm a reluctant voter.
@CatherineofAragon , i don't know if you've seen any of the conversation above, but I didn't mean to belittle your opinions. I'd be a little cheesed at someone I donated to if he went 180 on me too. If you read up there, you can see this whole election has not bee a pleasant thing for me at all.
@CatherineofAragon All of your anger and emotions are shared by me, so I appreciate all you have being saying on this subject. It helps me to see someone else shares my heartbreak over this. So thank you. Actually there are quite a few of us.
They're already running a sack of chickenshtuff...
For those that did not listen, here is the Cruz interview with Hewitt. His comment on "liberal Republicans" starts at minute 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6jdzwrCgEI
@Cyber Liberty, I'm just seeing everything now, and I see that I misunderstood you. I really did think you meant the "eff 'em" for me.
I'm sorry for my part, too. I definitely don't want to be at odds with you, friend.
@RAT Patrol
RAT, you're a very sweet person with a peacemaker's heart. I don't know if you read twitter or not---I do, though I don't have an account there---but we're not the only Cruz supporters feeling this way right now. I'm trying to figure out some other way to take what he said, I really am, but I'm not seeing it. To be honest, I'm not heartbroken---I'm pi**ed. It seems to me it was fine to be against Trump for as long as Cruz was, but now, if you didn't make the change when he did, you're a liberal.
@INVAR
Politics is really turning me off...and not just lately. The GOP could run a sack of chicken feed for president, and everybody would yammer about unity and supporting the candidate.
I can see Cruz running for the senate again, but not for president. He just doesn't have the personality for it. Plus the fact that after the Trump debacle, no conservative will ever stand a chance of being president.Trump is no Conservative, and never has been. He has put on certain conservative values like parts of a Halloween costume, and they will likely come off as fast after the election. Trump will only damage Conservatism in the minds of those who equate the 'R' brand with it. Republican does not equal conservative, and that is more evident than ever, even if a few Conservatives have managed to slip through and get elected under the GOP flag.
Cruz has everything it takes to make a great president; including personality. The only thing he doesn't have is a party that will stand behind him. He is much more in line with the Constitution Party than the GOP.I agree, especially with being aligned with the Constitution Party. Once I started looking, I found more to agree with there than I found in the GOP (especially post Trump). As I had chosen to back Cruz on principles, the transition would be a natural one.
I'd love to see Cruz run under the Constitution Party, but it would take some serious money to defeat the extremely well funded Uniparty opposition, and without any Party loyalty in the Congress, getting anything through would be a fight.The problem is, he's shown with this incident that he never will.
We could draft Chuck Norris.
@CatherineofAragon
It is frustrating. It seems like Senator Cruz went from "Constitutionalist" to "Trumpster" on a dime. And, in typical Trumpster fashion, trashing anybody who doesn't agree 100%. TOS isn't the only place that went somewhere in a handbasket.
My position about him is a little different because I wasn't all that hot on Cruz in the first place. I was a Walker guy.
@Cyber Liberty
It's just crazy to me. Down is up, up is down. I just want this freaking election to be over.
Your reply inspired me to write this:
What Happens To The Reagan/Constitutional Conservative Movement Now? (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=226972)
Would it help if you added it to your ignore list?
@bigheadfred
THAT'S IT!!!
@Cyber Liberty
It's just crazy to me. Down is up, up is down. I just want this freaking election to be over.
.....We knew from the very beginning going into this election that the 'fix' was in for Clinton ... ...
Months ago I read an article which put forth the claim that there just aren't that many conservatives in the Republican party---most are moderate to liberal.
A big problem is that conservatives don't put in the effort for the long game.
Go to any public school, and you'll see posters from a variety of left-leaning organizations. Cute pictures of animals, earth scenes, etc., that aren't overtly political, but they are given to teachers and schools for free by groups like Greenpeace...and they set the tone for things like "animal rights" and "environmentalism".
School teachers are always dying for materials for their classes, and to get these for free...wow! They scoop them up!
Trouble is, conservatives don't make comparable efforts, such as free posters of the founding fathers, or whatever. I tried to get conservative groups to sponsor this in the 90s, with not much luck. The few materials I *did* see out there were so clumsily overtly political, they had no hope of being used.
And then there's volunteering in the schools. Or becoming a substitute teacher. Or even becoming a teacher. No, just the lefties are willing to do those things.
But I took some time off and became a substitute. And I made a small difference by teaching economics to kids who'd previously just gotten the left side of the story. Yeah, one school...likely forgotten now, I know. But imagine if more conservatives did it like the lefties do.
But imagine if more conservatives did it like the lefties do.
It is an endorsement. It didn't have to be. He could have kept silent. Instead he is out there advocating for Trump and bashing those who won't vote for him. I feel very insulted and betrayed.
I'm not sure I believed that until now. The "debate" last night pretty much cinched it for me. It didn't matter who won, the "winner" was preordained.
I was a literacy volunteer teaching inner city kids how to read and reading with them in Trenton NJ for many years til I lost my kidneys. I loved it. The kids loved me. They didn't care my skin was different or my politics were different. I was just some lady that came to the school to first and second graders twice a week and tried to instill my love of reading.
:nometalk:
OK. WTH. They say some things are better left to the imagination...some things aren't.
Cruz called us Liberal Republicans?
Link please.
And I'm sorry...unless he says very specifically "I endorse Donald Trump" ...he's no more endorsing Donny than any of the people here that have made the difficult decision to hold their nose and vote for him.
I was a literacy volunteer teaching inner city kids how to read and reading with them in Trenton NJ for many years til I lost my kidneys. I loved it. The kids loved me. They didn't care my skin was different or my politics were different. I was just some lady that came to the school to first and second graders twice a week and tried to instill my love of reading.The coin kids trade in at that age is attention. If you pay them a little, it gains interest over the years and they will ever love you for it. Who knows what lives you will have changed by giving of your time. Kudos! blij26 :salute:
If you tell your teenage daughter to sleep with the bass player of the local band, you are endorsing that event.
The coin kids trade in at that age is attention. If you pay them a little, it gains interest over the years and they will ever love you for it. Who knows what lives you will have changed by giving of your time. Kudos! blij26 :salute:
Yup, calling us "liberal Republicans" was over the line in terms of any grace I will ever extend him again.
He's become just another party hack shill same as Limbaugh and Hannity.
I read his statement and heard his interviews. Where exactly dis he call us Liberals?
Cruz: Well, it is not surprising that there are a bunch of people throwing rocks, and I would note that the people who are throwing rocks are by and large people who have hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate since I have been elected. They have hated that I’ve taken on leadership and have been willing to lead the fight against Obamacare, willing to lead the fight against the debt ceiling, willing to lead the fight against amnesty. And when you have liberal Republicans who don’t want to see conservatives doing that, their natural fallback, and the fallback of many of the mainstream media, is anytime you’re fighting for conservative principles, they accuse you of being just political. That’s just what they say. They say oh, this is just politics. This is political. You know, the Wall Street Journal had an editorial where they said oh, it must be political. What inevitably happens is the Washington establishment accuses anyone who stands up to them of doing what they in fact are doing. Here’s the simple reality. If I were being political, I would have endorsed Donald Trump back in Cleveland at the convention. That was the obvious political thing to do. If the goal were political, that’s the easy decision. It’s why almost every other elected official did so.
On some sense, it is akin to asking conservatives what they think of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Do I personally think it was a violation of property rights? Sure. But for a politician to take that position today is political suicide, and while it may be "principled" to take a public stand on that, it also is stupid.
Fighting unpopular battles you can't win is simply giving a gift to your opponents.
Hugh Hewitt's show this morning (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/) who was answering the question of all the pushback Cruz was receiving from Conservatives and Republicans like Beck for his endorsement of Trump:@INVAR :amen: 888high58888 Thank you for articulating my thoughts and feelings so well.
My 'natural fallback' is not what the MSM parrots sir.
I would remind the good Senator that the majority of the 'liberal Republican Establishment' has already endorsed Trump. You were nearly the last man standing.
Most of the 'rock throwing' at you since your endorsement of Trump has been from principled Conservatives whom are outraged you betrayed them after telling us to vote our conscience back at the Convention.
Yesterday you said on Beck's show that our choice is now binary and if we do not want Hillary, we must vote for Trump, even after you declared him to be a sociopathic liar. Today you assert the people 'throwing rocks' at you are Liberal Republicans who hated your leadership and fight against Obamacare, when all of us applauded your efforts for doing so.
I think there is a reasonable threshold beyond which you should refuse to concede on an issue of principle. I am normally a person who insists on principle above all other considerations, but in this election I have chosen to deviate from Principle because the pragmatic argument is simply too powerful.
We have from Trump the most significant concession on an issue of principle; that he will nominate conservative judges, and he has even supplied us with a list for our perusal.
In contrast, we have from Hillary an absolute assurance that she will nominate Federal Judges who will further usurp our rights and impose on us a mandatory "group think" of Liberal Orthodoxy.
It has become a contest between a rather unprincipled Oskar Schindler sort of fellow and a True believer Socialist-Fascist psychotic hate-witch.
There is a point at which insisting on principle should require you to lose the political debate, but in the realistic scheme of things, it is only the "fainting couch" people who have reached this point in this election.
People who have a rational view of things realize that we have a bad choice and a super-horrible-evil bad choice. The most significant issue of principle is whether or not we are going to survive. At the moment, that is the only principle which we should be insisting on defending.
Allahpundit wrote an article about Cruz's new Trump surrogacy and the "liberal Republican" remark.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/)
@INVAR
@Frank Cannon
@RAT Patrol
@ExFreeper
@txradioguy
@CatherineofAragon , good article. No wonder you and scads of other people are so pissed at Cruz. He stabbed each and every one of us square in the back. The only reason I'm not more PO'ed than I am is because I didn't want him in the first place, but settled after the guy I liked got creamed because he had no money (Walker). I blame Bush the Tool for that.
Allahpundit wrote an article about Cruz's new Trump surrogacy and the "liberal Republican" remark.
None of the people “throwing rocks” at Cruz are liberal Republicans who hate him for standing up to Washington. Those people are laughing at him for having revealed just how thin his principles are once he finds himself in a truly hard spot politically. They’re not mad, they’re happy because he proved they were right about him all along. The people throwing rocks are chumps like Glenn Beck, Steve Deace, and me who liked that he stood up to his own leadership and wouldn’t go along with the tide in endorsing a not-even-pretend conservative like Trump. We all bought the “man of principle” nonsense to varying degrees and now, like anyone who’s been conned, we’re angry. The fact that Cruz is retreating into his same old tired bullsh*t about how everyone criticizing him is a tool of the establishment when it’s the opposite that’s true shows you just how few cards he has left to play to justify his change of heart.
Allahpundit wrote an article about Cruz's new Trump surrogacy and the "liberal Republican" remark.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/)
@INVAR
@Frank Cannon
@RAT Patrol
@ExFreeper
@txradioguy
@CatherineofAragon , good article. No wonder you and scads of other people are so pissed at Cruz. He stabbed each and every one of us square in the back. The only reason I'm not more PO'ed than I am is because I didn't want him in the first place, but settled after the guy I liked got creamed because he had no money (Walker). I blame Bush the Tool for that.
My question is, why did he say those things about people like you and me who have supported him through thick and thin?
What is the possible motive for accusing his supporters of opposing what he was doing in DC and being "liberal Republicans" when we are the polar opposite of that?
Couldn't he have just done what he felt he had to do (or was forced to do) in endorsing Trump and left out the false accusations against those of us who don't agree with what he did?
In reading those exact words, I am more than disappointed. Cruz stock has gone down for me significantly.
Hugh Hewitt's show this morning (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/) who was answering the question of all the pushback Cruz was receiving from Conservatives and Republicans like Beck for his endorsement of Trump:
My 'natural fallback' is not what the MSM parrots sir.
I would remind the good Senator that the majority of the 'liberal Republican Establishment' has already endorsed Trump. You were nearly the last man standing.
Most of the 'rock throwing' at you since your endorsement of Trump has been from principled Conservatives whom are outraged you betrayed them after telling us to vote our conscience back at the Convention.
Yesterday you said on Beck's show that our choice is now binary and if we do not want Hillary, we must vote for Trump, even after you declared him to be a sociopathic liar. Today you assert the people 'throwing rocks' at you are Liberal Republicans who hated your leadership and fight against Obamacare, when all of us applauded your efforts for doing so.
Cruz specifically laid out his two primary objectives as to why he is voting for Trump:
#1 To stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president.
#2 Preserve the Supreme Court and our Bill of Rights under the Constitution. He was very specific and laid out the fact that he met with Mike Pence (the meeting was known about weeks ago) and his answer to Pence was the Supreme Court; consequently a list of 21 acceptable justice nominees were given (including Mike Lee). Cruz also was specific in stating that he was told that the justice(s) would be picked and voted on from that list.
He also stated that Trump is the only one standing in the way between Hillary and losing our rights.
Once again, and I've stated this before, Cruz represented 31 states before the Supreme Court in Heller v. DC and won. I have every reason to believe he would like to see our 2nd amendment rights preserved as his primary motivation for voting Trump.
I continue to support Cruz. I very strongly believe that our 2nd amendment right is the MOST important of all of our rights; without it we will have NO rights!
I think there is a reasonable threshold beyond which you should refuse to concede on an issue of principle. I am normally a person who insists on principle above all other considerations, but in this election I have chosen to deviate from Principle because the pragmatic argument is simply too powerful.
We have from Trump the most significant concession on an issue of principle; that he will nominate conservative judges, and he has even supplied us with a list for our perusal.
It has become a contest between a rather unprincipled Oskar Schindler sort of fellow and a True believer Socialist-Fascist psychotic hate-witch.
There is a point at which insisting on principle should require you to lose the political debate
The most significant issue of principle is whether or not we are going to survive. At the moment, that is the only principle which we should be insisting on defending.
@musiclady, I wish I could answer your question, but I just don't understand the motive, either. It makes no sense to me.
You're right...if he believed he had to endorse Trump, that was one thing. Praising Trump's debate performance is getting into squeamish territory, where the types like Christie and Carson live. But deliberately mischaracterizing some of his strongest supporters as liberals is stunning to me.
I disagree.....that, from Cruz's statement right there....that he called us (#neverTrump folks) liberals or liberal Repubicans. He was talking about all of the RINO supporters there...NOT about his conservative (albeit former) supporters.
@libertybele
But why did he say that NeverTrumpers are liberals?
Look, I'm as well-versed with Cruz's accomplishments as anyone else. I spent enough time listing them to the morons at TOS, and for friends and family as well. My in-laws initially supported Cruz, but they fell for the Iowa/Ben Carson lie, and my husband and I tried our best to get them to see sense. We bought Ted's book and gave it to them.
Bottom line, endorsing Trump is one thing, and I don't even like that. Becoming a surrogate is another. But I'm not going to blindly follow someone who calls me a liberal after I worked for him and voted for him and gave him my hard-earned money.
Cruz specifically laid out his two primary objectives as to why he is voting for Trump:
#1 To stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president.
#2 Preserve the Supreme Court and our Bill of Rights under the Constitution. He was very specific and laid out the fact that he met with Mike Pence (the meeting was known about weeks ago) and his answer to Pence was the Supreme Court; consequently a list of 21 acceptable justice nominees were given (including Mike Lee). Cruz also was specific in stating that he was told that the justice(s) would be picked and voted on from that list.
He also stated that Trump is the only one standing in the way between Hillary and losing our rights.
Once again, and I've stated this before, Cruz represented 31 states before the Supreme Court in Heller v. DC and won. I have every reason to believe he would like to see our 2nd amendment rights preserved as his primary motivation for voting Trump.
I continue to support Cruz. I very strongly believe that our 2nd amendment right is the MOST important of all of our rights; without it we will have NO rights!
IMHO Cruz didn't call #NeverTrump liberals. That was not what I gathered from the Hewitt broadcast.
I am not blindly following Cruz as I have given this a lot of thought and though I continue to support him, I am going to be judging him carefully once again from this point forward. For now, I am very confident of the reasons that he laid out are indeed his conscience. Is there a possibility that he and/or his family was threatened? Absolutely. Is there a possibility that he was promised something other than the list of Supreme Court justices? Absolutely.
Would he purposefully ditch the people that worked their butts off for him, and left their jobs and homes to help him? Nope, I'm not buying that for a minute. I don't see it in his character, nor is it logical. After all, IF he intends to run for re-election in the Senate and later on the presidency, he's going to need that support. He's not stupid by any means.
IMHO IF indeed he 'caved' as some think he has, I don't see him running for re-election nor the presidency; he is conscientious and he has to live with losing his way, his principles and his integrity.
The difference between your understanding of the current situation and ours is that you see a significant disparity in probable effect between the two major candidates, while we consider that regardless of which one becomes President their actions will be essentially the same.
You see the "lesser evil" as worth setting aside your principles yet again (as we all have done in past elections, don't get me wrong), while we have had enough of being ignored and marginalized and see this hobson's choice as the last straw, and rejecting both candidates is what our principled demand of us.
Cruz is not responsible for the spot we find ourselves in. Its just as silly for NeverTrumpers to make him the object of their anger as it was for the Trumpsters.
Cruz specifically laid out his two primary objectives as to why he is voting for Trump:
#1 To stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president.
#2 Preserve the Supreme Court and our Bill of Rights under the Constitution. He was very specific and laid out the fact that he met with Mike Pence (the meeting was known about weeks ago) and his answer to Pence was the Supreme Court; consequently a list of 21 acceptable justice nominees were given (including Mike Lee). Cruz also was specific in stating that he was told that the justice(s) would be picked and voted on from that list.
He also stated that Trump is the only one standing in the way between Hillary and losing our rights.
Once again, and I've stated this before, Cruz represented 31 states before the Supreme Court in Heller v. DC and won. I have every reason to believe he would like to see our 2nd amendment rights preserved as his primary motivation for voting Trump.
I continue to support Cruz. I very strongly believe that our 2nd amendment right is the MOST important of all of our rights; without it we will have NO rights!
...then you should be thanking Donald Trump, who surgically removed from the running Jeb! – the well funded, open borders, media darling and establishment favorite to win.
Heck we should all be thanking Donald Trump for quickly dispatching the heir apparent to the Bush dynasty.
And as Trump deftly proved, he was the only sonofabitch who could do it. One dynasty down – one more to go November 8.
Go Trump! Defeat Hillary!
Though Cruz came out with a statement saying Trump was the big winner last night, and there's such a clear difference between him and Clinton, and we have to vote for Trump, etc., etc. Ted just keeps digging.
Cruz's analysis and priorities are spot on. Hillary has more hatred of us than does Barack Obama, and she is far more vindictive. If she wins, conservatives will literally have targets on their backs. She will unleash a new Federal Gestapo on we dissidents. We will face tax increases, "hate crimes" prosecutions, audits, intimidation, threats, and regulations specifically designed to wreck our lives and careers.
:amen:
Cruz needs to remind himself that he is not the Constitution or conservatism. I will not bow and kiss his ring any more than I will Trump's.
I guess it's now a proven fact that you cannot support Trump without having to lie.
What I have seen is not the least bit "silly." The NeverTrumpers are not "making Cruz the object of their anger"....... they are wondering why Cruz disparaged them by calling them liberals (which he did).
I'm not emotionally invested in Cruz, but I am invested in Conservative principles and the fact that I felt he best represented them, and as I have stated above, I wonder why he had to add the insult. His decision to endorse Trump may have come from the right place, but there was no need to go after the people who disagreed with his doing so by calling them liberal.
Then they were not really principles you held to begin with. 'Reasonable threshold'?
Tell that to the Christians in Iraq, Egypt and Syria who are being told to 'convert to Islam or watch your family die'.
To men, that might be a 'reasonable threshold' to surrender your principles, even though there is no guarantee that the Jihadists are not going to kill them and you anyway (making sure you and your family die as Muslims). It can be argued that deviating from principle because convert now, repent later and save your family is a powerful pragmatic argument. Certainly a powerful pragmatic argument to the reasoning of men, except that denial of principle will cost them their salvation since Christ said explicitly that if we deny The Father before men, He will deny us before The Father.
That's life and death there. This is just politics we're talking here.
Anytime you would choose to surrender a principle for pragmatism, you've surrendered your principle completely because you obviously are not governed by it. It was never a principle to begin with. Just a guideline that can change for the sake of expedience.
Trump has more hatred of us, since his side is the one who attacks us more. Trump is well known for being vindicitive. Trump will mean the end of any conservatism within the GOP, if he hasn't already. We all know what Trump and his brownshirts want to do with us who refuse to vote for him.
As a matter of fact Trump and Hillary are pretty much the same thing.
Which will continue under Clinton, but which may be stopped under Trump.
.
Music...where is the link to Cruz actually calling his supporters liberals?? Again, he went after the people in Congress, the media, etc., that have always criticized him.
It has been linked to and the transcript posted on this thread. A small percentage of those angry at him are liberals. He blew that up to sound like most all of the critics were liberals. Just the opposite. Most all of the critics are conservative supporters who have been defending him for weeks over the exact same thing. What happened to "vote your conscience." Now that his conscience says "Trump," the rest of us are liberals.Cruz is my senator and has and continues to represent Texas well in the senate. I don't agree with some of the things he does, but considering our other senator....the man is a giant.
You are refusing to see the truth because you like him. I understand that. It is a human weakness we all share. But we must fight against it. Cruz is wrong in this instance. VERY VERY wrong. He may regret those words. He may just regret the backlash. He is trying hard to have it both ways. But just like with Trump, the truth is the truth is the truth. Two contrary things are not true at the same time. No rewrites are given just because we like the guy. Cruz is a total hypocrite right now. Complete and total. He is acting just like Trump. That seems to happen to everyone who gets on that hideous train. Cruz praised Trump's debate performance where he basically pulled a similar "she's ugly" "she's fat" smear like he did to Cruz's own wife. Yet Cruz praises him now. What gives?
In the quoted paragraphs, here.......... particularly the second one in the quote box.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/)
I'm not going to throw Cruz under the bus for this, but most, if not all of the criticism of his endorsing Trump has come from people who were with him in his Senate stand against the GOPe...... i.e. his supporters, none of whom are "liberal."
Again, a completely unnecessary assault on people who opposed his endorsement of a leftist, and IMO, not wise either politically or personally.
JMHO......
The quote from Ted Cruz is as follows:
TC: Well, it is not surprising that there are a bunch of people throwing rocks, and I would note that the people who are throwing rocks are by and large people who have hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate
The rest in my humble opinion is that of the person who is doing the article. Again, and it is not my intent to argue with you Music lady, but nowhere do I find a direct quote of Cruz calling his supporters liberals in this linked article are even doing a google search.
The quote from Ted Cruz is as follows:
TC: Well, it is not surprising that there are a bunch of people throwing rocks, and I would note that the people who are throwing rocks are by and large people who have hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate
The rest in my humble opinion is that of the person who is doing the article. Again, and it is not my intent to argue with you Music lady, but nowhere do I find a direct quote of Cruz calling his supporters liberals in this linked article are even doing a google search.
And when you have liberal Republicans who don’t want to see conservatives doing that, their natural fallback, and the fallback of many of the mainstream media, is anytime you’re fighting for conservative principles, they accuse you of being just political.
The quote from Ted Cruz is as follows:
TC: Well, it is not surprising that there are a bunch of people throwing rocks, and I would note that the people who are throwing rocks are by and large people who have hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate
The rest in my humble opinion is that of the person who is doing the article. Again, and it is not my intent to argue with you Music lady, but nowhere do I find a direct quote of Cruz calling his supporters liberals in this linked article are even doing a google search.
I perceive you may be lacking in the necessary rigorous background in logic and philosophy necessary for you to grasp my point there.
Think "math functions", and you will have a better understanding of what constitutes actual reality.
Which will continue under Clinton, but which may be stopped under Trump. I see Hungary is offering asylum to Christians in the Middle East. With Obama's policies continued, we will not do this, but with Trump? We might.
And that is the delusion I am constantly fighting here on this website; That we are merely talking "Politics" here. No, we are talking *LIFE* AND *DEATH* HERE as well, it's just that some of you haven't yet quite grasped the essential point I am trying to make when I say *HILLARY IS A NAZI*!
Murderous policies are coming to America if Hillary gets her claws on power.
There are big principles and there are little principles, and one of the most important principles is the need to distinguish them by priority.
You appear to be big on the bible, so heed God's admonishment about rescuing your Ox on the Sabbath. [/url] The lesser principle must always yield to the greater.
Trump will mean the end of any conservatism within the GOP, if he hasn't already.
We all know what Trump and his brownshirts want to do with us who refuse to vote for him.
You haven't found it because it doesn't exist! This whole thread is about made up media garbage!
@libertybeleThe "liberal" thing makes no sense to me, either. Of all people, those who embraced the concepts he campaigned on are not Liberals in the modern sense, and Cruz would absolutely know that.
But why did he say that NeverTrumpers are liberals?
Look, I'm as well-versed with Cruz's accomplishments as anyone else. I spent enough time listing them to the morons at TOS, and for friends and family as well. My in-laws initially supported Cruz, but they fell for the Iowa/Ben Carson lie, and my husband and I tried our best to get them to see sense. We bought Ted's book and gave it to them.
Bottom line, endorsing Trump is one thing, and I don't even like that. Becoming a surrogate is another. But I'm not going to blindly follow someone who calls me a liberal after I worked for him and voted for him and gave him my hard-earned money.
Exactly how is he going to accomplish that? Aren't all of us free to vote however we want in the primaries and general elections of 2018 and 2020? How would he prevent that?
Okay, assume Trump wins. Exactly what do you expect he and his supporters to do to the rest of us? Be specific.
I reject your assertions. They do not bear any resemblance to the reality which I perceive.This, ladies and gentlemen, is why Donald Trump continues to be a contender.
What do you think he meant in those direct quotes, Bigun?
I don't see any media spin with the words I read. What you think he meant by them?
(Serious, respectful question).
TC: Well, it is not surprising that there are a bunch of people throwing rocks, and I would note that the people who are throwing rocks are by and large people who have hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate
Stunning and entirely unnecessary.
Again, laying out his reasons for the endorsement (which I would disagree with, but as with others, accept) is perfectly acceptable, but there is no reason in the world to insult us with something that is preposterous.
I may be repeating myself, but that part of it makes no sense whatsoever.
You haven't found it because it doesn't exist! This whole thread is about made up media garbage!
What do you think he meant in those direct quotes, Bigun?
I don't see any media spin with the words I read. What you think he meant by them?
(Serious, respectful question).
This appears to be the Big Quote under discussion:
I happen to disagree with that assertion, and I don't care if it came from Ted Cruz's own lips. I'd hazard a guess that not one person on this forum "hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate." I think we were pretty unified in our support when he fought against Chinless McConnell. Our opinions only diverged when he came out and said we gotta support Trump.
It is flat-out inaccurate for him to say people who disagree with his Trump endorsement did not support him when he was fighting the GOP leadership. It simply isn't true, and that's the biggest problem I have with his interview with Hugh. What's another word for speaking an untruth? What do we call someone who does it?
I think he was talking about the "leadership" in Washington and most of the media. Certainly not you and I!
He's an expert communicator and absolutely brilliant.
Why, then, do his words look like he did mean you and me? And if he meant the "leadership" in DC, has he clarified that since this interview? I haven't heard that he has...
My mind isn't made up yet, Bigun. I'm just telling you what it looks like.
I WANT to have at least one person in Washington I trust. Believe me!!
This is not compromise. It is a sellout and a back-stab. Both. I will look at it how it appears to me. You can look at it how it appears to you. This whole fight is so reminiscent of the Trumpsters that I am disgusted. I do not see it as a small thing. Get over it. See it how ever you want to see it. Ted Cruz is going to be forever off my list if you guys keep morphing into Trumpsters.
He already is in the process of destroying Conservatism within the GOP. He is rebranding, redefining and recategorizing what a 'Conservative' is.
Today it is said that a lifelong, NYC Democrat who funded and campaigned for the Clintons, the Schumers and the DeBlasios is 'Conservative'.
By 2018, Hillary could get away with calling herself a Conservative.
By 2020 - Marx and Engels will be regarded as the Fathers of modern Conservative thought.
Exactly. Against all the evidence of Hillary's mindset and History, you irrationally think that other people could be just as bad.
This "lesser evil" is an issue of scale. You would have us believe that we are comparing a rat and a mouse, the mouse being the "lesser evil." This comparison is as inaccurate as it can possibly be. The reality is more that of comparing a Cobra to a Mouse, because the mouse will just annoy us, but the Cobra will pose a deadly threat.
Hillary is the modern day reincarnation of the Nazis in the United States. Trump is just a greasy capitalist opportunist of dubious ethics.
I reject your assertions. They do not bear any resemblance to the reality which I perceive.
I'm really curious to hear a realistic scenario that will have Trump accomplishing those same results.
Sorry if you think I am morphing. Just throwing it out there. To me it is a polly acting like a polly. I would count Ted on the SCOTUS a win.
Any ways I am about to launch a campaign on this forum to get every member on board with contacting their reps to the point those pollys get every state represented on this forum to pass agreement to an Article Five Convention. I prolly won't have time to begin my e=mail assault on my reps until this weekend, but I am going to apply all of my bigheadedness to the effort.
All the people defending Cruz are sounding like Trumpsters defending Trump. They will not suffer criticism of their man. Well, tough. Cruz deserves this criticism. They can disagree. I think they should not be bashing the rest of us. But whatever. Divide and conquer. Enjoy your ride on the Trump train. (Not you. Them.)
You can think you know what he meant all you want. It is not what he said.
Just because Donald Trump calls a chicken a dog does not magically convert all chickens into man's best friend. The label itself of limited value because people didn't agree on the definition even before Trump... The rest is semantics.
Is he? Do you think he is?
Saying ridiculous things like that just demonstrates that you have no serious argument.
This isn't a serious argument, so it essentially amounts to you just conceding the point.
OK people.
Stop talking and start doing. Please.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,227168.msg1072133.html#msg1072133
You must realize (we certainly do) that the way you phrase your challenge guarantees that you will reject any answer given as "unrealistic."
OK people.
Stop talking and start doing. Please.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,227168.msg1072133.html#msg1072133
This appears to be the Big Quote under discussion:
I happen to disagree with that assertion, and I don't care if it came from Ted Cruz's own lips. I'd hazard a guess that not one person on this forum "hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate." I think we were pretty unified in our support when he fought against Chinless McConnell. Our opinions only diverged when he came out and said we gotta support Trump.
It is flat-out inaccurate for him to say people who disagree with his Trump endorsement did not support him when he was fighting the GOP leadership. It simply isn't true, and that's the biggest problem I have with his interview with Hugh. What's another word for speaking an untruth? What do we call someone who does it?
So you are not against making a politician your god. You just don't want it to be Trump. Got it.
@Cyber Liberty
@musiclady
@Smokin Joe
Here's the thing. As far as I know, and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know of any RINOS in the Senate who are "throwing rocks" at Cruz for supporting Trump. Haven't they pretty much all fallen in line with the GOP leadership, especially since Priebus sent down his little diktat?
Some in here are completely taking things out of context; he was specifically answering a question asked by Hewitt and in that answer he was referring to RINO's -- NOT HIS SUPPORTERS!Yes, the context in which Cruz offered his response is clear.
If you want to rally against the one person who has stood for 'we the people' countless times against the Kingmakers and who saved our 2nd amendment rights over a misconstrued and contorted interpretation of what he actually said. Go for it. It's not going to change one iota the dilemma that ALL those who are voting are facing. We have five choices; Trump, Hillary, Write-in, 3rd party or don't vote.
I chose to stand with Cruz. Don't stay home, vote your conscience and vote as conservatively as you can down ballot.
IMHO if we don't hold the Senate and lose seats in the House and Hillary is seated in the oval office, this country is done; and no that's not some scare tactic or threat, that is reality.
He already is in the process of destroying Conservatism within the GOP. He is rebranding, redefining and recategorizing what a 'Conservative' is. Today it is said that a lifelong, NYC Democrat who funded and campaigned for the Clintons, the Schumers and the DeBlasios is 'Conservative'.Exactly. Those who refuse to see the rebranding of "conservative" taking place, and with it "Republican" are being willfully blind to the facts.
By 2018, Hillary could get away with calling herself a Conservative.
By 2020 - Marx and Engels will be regarded as the Fathers of modern Conservative thought.
It's just a political version of defining deviancy down and bastardizing the language so that what was once unacceptable, is now preferred.
Aside from the numbers of social media freaks who promise to roam the countryside and 'punish' (meaning shoot for treason) those of us who did not vote for Trump - I will let Trump's campaign Advisor answer that question for you:
"More importantly, every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump.”"]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-critics-bow-down-trump]"More importantly, every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump.”" (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-critics-bow-down-trump)
Exactly. Those who refuse to see the rebranding of "conservative" taking place, and with it "Republican" are being willfully blind to the facts.
Since when has it been acceptable to have a Republican candidate for POTUS who donated conspicuously to Democrats, especially some of the most rabid ones?
Newt was discarded as a candidate for his marital affairs, but Trump is OK?
When do we back someone who has such obvious contempt for women, based on nothing but their physical appearance? (Conservatism has a long heritage of being Chivalrous, is that so easily discarded?)
In past years, shady or questionable business dealings would have been investigated, not brushed aside by the wave of anger the candidate has harnessed.
Angry people do stupid things, and Trump has already damaged the GOP, conservative credibility, and caused the entire discussion of what is politically acceptable to take a couple of side steps to the Left, further away from the Constitution.
I can't support that, either. As for math functions being "reality" I think I'll go back to pondering the square root of negative one.
Some in here are completely taking things out of context; he was specifically answering a question asked by Hewitt and in that answer he was referring to RINO's -- NOT HIS SUPPORTERS!
If you want to rally against the one person who has stood for 'we the people' countless times against the Kingmakers and who saved our 2nd amendment rights over a misconstrued and contorted interpretation of what he actually said. Go for it. It's not going to change one iota the dilemma that ALL those who are voting are facing. We have five choices; Trump, Hillary, Write-in, 3rd party or don't vote.
I chose to stand with Cruz. Don't stay home, vote your conscience and vote as conservatively as you can down ballot.
IMHO if we don't hold the Senate and lose seats in the House and Hillary is seated in the oval office, this country is done; and no that's not some scare tactic or threat, that is reality.
Some in here are completely taking things out of context; he was specifically answering a question asked by Hewitt and in that answer he was referring to RINO's -- NOT HIS SUPPORTERS!If Cruz had made such a statement, denigrating the Conservatives who supported him, I'd see it as a sign his support was obtained under duress, not as brave as Jeremiah Denton blinking morse code for "torture' in front of the North Vietnamese cameras, but similar. I would think Cruz knows the supporters upset over the tepid endorsement of Trump are Conservatives who backed him, not the Liberal Republicans on The Hill.
If you want to rally against the one person who has stood for 'we the people' countless times against the Kingmakers and who saved our 2nd amendment rights over a misconstrued and contorted interpretation of what he actually said. Go for it. It's not going to change one iota the dilemma that ALL those who are voting are facing. We have five choices; Trump, Hillary, Write-in, 3rd party or don't vote.
I chose to stand with Cruz. Don't stay home, vote your conscience and vote as conservatively as you can down ballot.
IMHO if we don't hold the Senate and lose seats in the House and Hillary is seated in the oval office, this country is done; and no that's not some scare tactic or threat, that is reality.
"...Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump....
This appears to be the Big Quote under discussion:
I happen to disagree with that assertion, and I don't care if it came from Ted Cruz's own lips. I'd hazard a guess that not one person on this forum "hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate." I think we were pretty unified in our support when he fought against Chinless McConnell. Our opinions only diverged when he came out and said we gotta support Trump.
It is flat-out inaccurate for him to say people who disagree with his Trump endorsement did not support him when he was fighting the GOP leadership. It simply isn't true, and that's the biggest problem I have with his interview with Hugh. What's another word for speaking an untruth? What do we call someone who does it?
But he didn't say "people who disagree with his Trump endorsement did not support him when he was fighting the GOP leadership". He said "the people who are throwing rocks". Are you or I "throwing rocks"? I'm guessing my personal ability to influence others' political opinions amounts to a little less than looking at a grain of sand through one squinted eye and hoping it will turn sideways.
Talk about not being serious....
In what universe do you take every stupid statement someone makes and accept it as fact? If Omarosa said that Trump was going to sprout wings and fly to the Sun and back, would you accept that as fact? Then why pass off as fact her asinine statement that everyone will have to "bow down" to Trump???
No, everyone will not have to bow down to Trump. Nor will they have to bow down to Hillary either, for that matter. That, at least, is well beyond the ability of either of them to enforce.
Talk about not being serious....
In what universe do you take every stupid statement someone makes and accept it as fact? If Omarosa said that Trump was going to sprout wings and fly to the Sun and back, would you accept that as fact? Then why pass off as fact her asinine statement that everyone will have to "bow down" to Trump???
For the life of me I can't understand how everyone is getting their panties in a wad over this nothing burger........ Our country is going to hell in a hand basket and people are worried and parsing a few words uttered by a state senator. Come on people...get over it.
888ohnoes
I guess it's now a proven fact that you cannot support Trump without having to lie.
It's amazing. Everyone who associates him- or herself with Trump is inevitably tarnished.
Talk about not being serious....Interesting how you quoted from my quote of @INVAR and credited it to me to respond to me. Go back and look at my unedited post, and find where I said that. Then go have a nice day.
In what universe do you take every stupid statement someone makes and accept it as fact? If Omarosa said that Trump was going to sprout wings and fly to the Sun and back, would you accept that as fact? Then why pass off as fact her asinine statement that everyone will have to "bow down" to Trump???
No, everyone will not have to bow down to Trump. Nor will they have to bow down to Hillary either, for that matter. That, at least, is well beyond the ability of either of them to enforce.
It's amazing. Everyone who associates him- or herself with Trump is inevitably tarnished.
Interesting how you quoted from my quote of @INVAR and credited it to me to respond to me.
It's amazing. Everyone who associates him- or herself with Trump is inevitably tarnished.
She apparently is a Trump campaign spokesperson. That makes the statement official.
I think that applies to every POTUS and/or candidate in the last period from HWB on up. Or down. Depending on how you look at it.
Kellyanne Conway is heading down the same path. She was on Megyn Kelly last night, and you could see it in her eyes. How silly it was, to think she could turn Donald into a serious adult.
You quoted @INVAR and then said "Exactly".Okay, so let's argue about the Quote from the article @INVAR was quoting. Here is the link, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-critics-bow-down-trump (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-critics-bow-down-trump) and the quote, in its entirety (albeit this is an excerpt from the article)
I'll admit when I've screwed up in wrongly attributing something to someone, but I think for me to infer that your "Exactly" signified agreement with his statement was a reasonable inference.
The most striking comment in the trailer comes from Manigault, the former "Apprentice" contestant who now serves as the Trump campaign's director of African-American outreach. She paints an ominous picture when she suggests that a big motivation for Trump's candidacy is making his haters "bow down" to him.
“Donald Trump is running for president because he really, truly believes he can turn the country around," she said. "More importantly, every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump.”
Okay, so let's argue about the Quote from the article @INVAR was quoting. Here is the link, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-critics-bow-down-trump (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-critics-bow-down-trump) and the quote, in its entirety (albeit this is an excerpt from the article)
So, what there did she not say?
Why did she say it if she didn't mean it?
It is from the article @INVAR cited and commented on, which is the comment which I commented on. Find fault with the quote, then. It is roughly at 3:10 in the trailer.
http://youtu.be/yYMEvuZz1RU (http://youtu.be/yYMEvuZz1RU)
She doesn't sound terribly bright. Bright people rarely get elective boob jobs, let alone boob jobs that jump about five cup sizes. It's not healthy.
She doesn't sound terribly bright. Bright people rarely get elective boob jobs, let alone boob jobs that jump about five cup sizes. It's not healthy.
Talk about not being serious....
In what universe do you take every stupid statement someone makes and accept it as fact? If Omarosa said that Trump was going to sprout wings and fly to the Sun and back, would you accept that as fact? Then why pass off as fact her asinine statement that everyone will have to "bow down" to Trump???
No, everyone will not have to bow down to Trump. Nor will they have to bow down to Hillary either, for that matter. That, at least, is well beyond the ability of either of them to enforce.
It seems to me that you haven't been paying much attention to what is going on or you purposely choose not to, which is the most likely answer.
If a Trumpster post that Trump is going to sprout wings and fly to the Sun and back you had best not post something to the contrary, because you instantly become an enemy of the Trump State, you are labeled a GOPe, Globalist, Neocon, RINO, CFR, Goldman Sach's lick boot Hillary lover of the most loathsome of nature and a traitor to the Republic, which requires that you be placed on a watch list of like minded others who will be address once Trump is in office.
In fact just that you posted something that it was not reasonable that Trump could actually sprout wings and fly to the Sun and back most likely at the very least placed you of some loyal Trumpkins RADAR and may even gotten your own name placed on a list sonewhere of those with questionable loyalty to 'The Donald'.
The most striking comment in the trailer comes from Manigault, the former "Apprentice" contestant who now serves as the Trump campaign's director of African-American outreach. She paints an ominous picture when she suggests that a big motivation for Trump's candidacy is making his haters "bow down" to him.If you go to the link, scroll down the page and watch the video,http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-critics-bow-down-trump (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-critics-bow-down-trump)
“Donald Trump is running for president because he really, truly believes he can turn the country around," she said. "More importantly, every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump.”
I must admit I took a bit of a risk making that observation, which is why I couched my words with "elective." Somebody could have really jumped on me for it for being a "shallow Hal." But I looked up her images on Google, and she had enormous bolt-ons installed. The kind you see on porn stars.
She doesn't sound terribly bright. Bright people rarely get elective boob jobs, let alone boob jobs that jump about five cup sizes. It's not healthy.@Cyber Liberty This thread is useless with out pictures.
I must admit I took a bit of a risk making that observation, which is why I couched my words with "elective." Somebody could have really jumped on me for it for being a "shallow Hal." But I looked up her images on Google, and she had enormous bolt-ons installed. The kind you see on porn stars.@Cyber Liberty And yet still no pictures.
@Cyber Liberty And yet still no pictures.
The kind you see on porn stars.How is this keeping people abreast of the latest developments? :tongue2:
And apparently he has seen plenty. Seems a bit selfish here. :silly:
Exactly. Those who refuse to see the rebranding of "conservative" taking place, and with it "Republican" are being willfully blind to the facts.
Since when has it been acceptable to have a Republican candidate for POTUS who donated conspicuously to Democrats, especially some of the most rabid ones?
Newt was discarded as a candidate for his marital affairs, but Trump is OK?
When do we back someone who has such obvious contempt for women, based on nothing but their physical appearance? (Conservatism has a long heritage of being Chivalrous, is that so easily discarded?)
@Cyber Liberty And yet still no pictures.
Grace? Excuse me? Where were you while packs of Cruz supporters and assorted #NeverTrumpers ganged up on and ravaged with streams of vile insults the handful of Trump supporters here?
No no no, this doesn't just end with the cult leader Cruz endorsing Trump. No, it's not that easy. It doesn't just stop with that.
The way you people HERE treated Trump supporters was nothing less than shameful and I won't soon forget that.
As you are now by your constant bashing of the one man that threatens to crash the party and actually implement policies that are good for the American people.Oh, I'm not denying that there is an oligarchy, there sure is. I wasn't a fan of the Bush Clan, especially after Neil's Silverado S&L bit. But banking manipulation, screwing the 'little' guy, pay for play, Alinsky tactics, media manipulation, the selfsame tactics one candidate uses, the other does, too. You need to wake up to the new, improved, citrus uniparty product you are supporting. He's no more an outsider than Chelsea, he's just been at it longer. As for implementing policies, what do you want, a dictator to restore the Republic? He can't do squat without the oligarchy backing it up. period. So where does that leave you? Going down the same road with a new face, with a blank slate who has promised promises all over the chart, but who has betrayed those he made promises to in the past, and is setting up the biggest con in the history of the country. Do you want a dictator? Otherwise, what is he going to do that the uniparty won't have to vote for?
@Smokin Joe
He's no more an outsider than Chelsea, he's just been at it longer.
As for implementing policies, what do you want, a dictator to restore the Republic? He can't do squat without the oligarchy backing it up. period.
So where does that leave you? Going down the same road with a new face, with a blank slate who has promised promises all over the chart, but who has betrayed those he made promises to in the past, and is setting up the biggest con in the history of the country. Do you want a dictator? Otherwise, what is he going to do that the uniparty won't have to vote for?
You can't burn the Constitution to save it.
Trump is an "outsider". He has never held a political office and he's never gotten a government paycheck. He is running to reform what he correctly sees as a corrupt system. He is a classic outsider. Just being rich does not make him part of the oligarchy. You know he is a outsider when everyone on the "inside" is attacking him.He is authorized to enforce our laws, not make them. Without funding there won't be any wall, and what flavor of wall will that be? Virtual wall, physical barrier, a hybrid? What about the places where you can't build a wall, or will ranch land access to water be cut off and the land seized along the Rio Grande? There are 1954 miles of highly varied terrain along that border, and part of it runs down the middle of the river.
Trump promises to build the wall and enforce existing immigration laws. He does not need anything from Congress or the oligarchy to do that. As the chief executive of the United States he is fully authorized to enforce our laws. Congress has already authorized The Wall so all he would need is funding. Also the President conducts foreign policy so once again President Trump needs nothing out of the ordinary to implement his policies (stop training and funding groups like ISIS, renegotiate bad trade deals, halt importing Muslim rapefuges).
Where does that leave me? In a much better USA than Hillary would have.
It seems to me that you haven't been paying much attention to what is going on or you purposely choose not to, which is the most likely answer.
Angry people do stupid things, and Trump has already damaged the GOP, conservative credibility, and caused the entire discussion of what is politically acceptable to take a couple of side steps to the Left, further away from the Constitution.
He is authorized to enforce our laws, not make them. Without funding there won't be any wall, and what flavor of wall will that be? Virtual wall, physical barrier, a hybrid? What about the places where you can't build a wall, or will ranch land access to water be cut off and the land seized along the Rio Grande? There are 1954 miles of highly varied terrain along that border, and part of it runs down the middle of the river.
Some of the key factors driving business from these United States are regulations from agencies like EPA, OSHA, and an alphabet soup of others, along with laws like the ESA. Just the requirements for surveys along a construction site for Raptors, rare plants, rare/endangered animals, cultural assets and antiquities, protected and sacred ground, etc. along with the EIS will take more than four years. Just getting the ACOE, BLM, USFWS, USFS, NPS, EPA, BIA, Tribal Governments, and others on the same page will be a challenge.
I'm all for controlling the border and immigration. I just realize that routes and methods will change, too, even before any wall is ever done. Whether they are looking for a home depot to wait in front of, smuggling drugs, or terrorists from far away, they'll find a way in.
But yeah, he is going to need something from Congress. Money, and a lot of it. That funding won't come through 'clean', there will be riders, which means more money, and a lot of that.
Oh yeah, Mexico is going to pay for it... **nononono*
When someone promises to move the moon and stars, color me skeptical.
When they promise it free, I politely advise them to leave my property.
I'm not disagreeing that all those things need to be done: The borders need to be better controlled, we need to keep "radical Islam" out, clamp down on foreign aid, and renegotiate bad trade deals. Keep in mind that the oligarchy put all that stuff there for a reason, their reason, and they aren't going to be any too happy to see it go. It's their pie, and they don't want to lose any of it. Which is a big part of why I have little faith it will get done. As for an outsider, we'll differ. He has bought (well, rented access to) politicians, and those donations have him more involved in politics at higher levels than most Americans. His absence of holding office does not, imho, make him an 'outsider'. He's just been playing from behind the scenes.
That's all true, and well said. But even without significant funding, a President and his appointees can still have enormous influence on the regulatory side of things. There is also the question of enforcement -- the Obama Administration has used the Justice Department as an affirmative tool to advance an agenda many of us oppose, and that has also happened with things like the NLRB, EPA, etc....Actually, no. I don't really think it is to our benefit to continue to entrench agencies for which there is no Constitutional Authorization, to continue to fund them nor to grant them legitimacy by saying they are operating in spirit the way we want them to, even if they aren't getting anything done? What is the purpose of such Kabuke other than bamboozling the taxpayer and continuing to usurp the power over lands which should be the property of individuals and under the jurisdiction of the States?
Even if Trump is not able to get funding for things like the wall, isn't it still far better to have the administrative agencies using the discretion they do have to push in the other direction? Because the alternative is going to be a Hillary Administration that is going to actively seek to accelerate all the things we find wrong on the regulatory side of things.
Actually, no. I don't really think it is to our benefit to continue to entrench agencies for which there is no Constitutional Authorization, to continue to fund them nor to grant them legitimacy by saying they are operating in spirit the way we want them to, even if they aren't getting anything done?
With Trump there is a chance we can stop the Marxist Globalist take over of the USA
I don't understand your point here. Are you saying we shouldn't elect anyone unless they refuse to staff federal agencies, promise to repeal the APA, and pretend the bureaucracy doesn't exist?My point is simple. I don't want more efficient overbearing government.
I don't disagree with you that the entire regulatory state is out of control. I personally think that regulations should not have the force of law unless ratified by Congress, and that the entire structure is unconstitutional. But expecting an instant, immediate halt to that ignores reality. What it would take is a serious of Administrations willing to ratchet them back. And in the meantime, it's better to have agencies staffed by people who are less activist.
I don't see any reasonable basis not to believe that Trump's cabinet would be better in that regard than Hillary's, especially since Hillary's is likely going to exceed it's powers to grant voting rights to people who should not be permitted to vote.
And it seems very clear to me that you have absolutely no idea of the context in which I made that statement. The context was asking for evidence of how Trump will actually destroy the conservative movement once in office. The comparison was Hillary enabling the registration and voting of up to ten million illegal voters, and packing the Supreme Court with progressive activists who will issue rulings finding that much of the progressive agenda is constitutionally mandated. That is something from which there is no recovery.
In response, I was quoted a serious of stupid statements/ridiculous threats made by some Trump supporters. I then pointed out that statements like "we'll all have to "bow down" to Trump", or that non-Trump supporters will be "hunted down with dogs" are not reality. They are braggadocious B.S., and do not reflect what will happen after the election.
Given that you very clearly did not pay attention to what had been said earlier, I'll just ask you directly:
Which do you believe is more likely to actually occur?
A) If Hillary is elected, she will 1) appoint progressive justices who will grant constitutional protections to much of the progressive agenda, and 2) loosen voting and immigration restrictions so as to enable the casting of votes by millions of new voters who should not be eligible; or,
B) If Trump is elected, we will all be forced to bow down to him, and everyone who didn't vote for him will be hunted down like dogs.
Which of those do you think, in reality, is the more plausible scenario?
Trump & Hillary are on the same side.
No seeming to it, you very clearly dodge the context of the discussion and have I have little hope that you intend to address the subject at hand. That being that Trump supporters have repeatedly made almost as many outrageous statements about Trump, his abilities and what he would be able to accomplish as President as he has. That when Trump supporters are confronted by the outrageous nature of their statements they like Trump have not back off, but doubled down as to the accuracy of their assertions and savagely attacked those pointing out the fallacy of their contentions and have dueled to the death over supporting their statements of delusions.
Which do you believe is more likely to actually occur?
A) If Hillary is elected, she will 1) appoint progressive justices who will grant constitutional protections to much of the progressive agenda, and 2) loosen voting and immigration restrictions so as to enable the casting of votes by millions of new voters who should not be eligible; or,
B) If Trump is elected, we will all "be forced to bow down to him", and everyone who didn't vote for him "will be hunted down with dogs."
Which of those do you think, in reality, is the more plausible scenario?
The argument that Trump is a liberal is meaningless, so what?
at least he is not uniparty, not owned by the uniparty and not beholden to the uniparty.
With Trump there is a chance we can stop the Marxist Globalist take over of the USA
it's the people vrs the ruling elites and like it or not Trump is leading the people.
I don't dispute that at all, nor am I dodging the point.. There are a lot of Trump supporters who say incredibly stupid things, and are as ridiculously thin-skinned as he is. I have called some of them out on this very site in the last couple of days, but honestly, it's a point that's been beaten into the ground for months now. I suppose that's a fun issue to keep batting around if your goal is to score points against the "other side", and there's no shortage of material. So there -- your point addressed.
But my concern in this thread -- which I expressed long before you addressed me -- was the danger each would present after being elected. So given that you chose to comment on a post of mine that wasn't directed to you, and that was on a different subject, how about you doing me the equivalent courtesy of addressing my point? I'll ask it again, in case you've forgotten.
Which do you believe is more likely to actually occur?
A) If Hillary is elected, she will 1) appoint progressive justices who will grant constitutional protections to much of the progressive agenda, and 2) loosen voting and immigration restrictions so as to enable the casting of votes by millions of new voters who should not be eligible; or,
B) If Trump is elected, we will all "be forced to bow down to him", and everyone who didn't vote for him "will be hunted down with dogs."
Which of those do you think, in reality, is the more plausible scenario?
Trump & Hillary are on the same side.
I guess it boils down to who you want to start the next revolution.
If Congress fails to step up and strip either sort of program of funding, either is a possibility.
If they would do the job they were sent to DC to do, it is likely we would not be in this mess to begin with, and they could prevent either scenario. One of the jobs of Congress is to provide a check to and balance out Executive branch authoritarianism.
Most members of Congress and just about everyone employed by the federal government are members of the uniparty. Remember the goal of the uniparty memebers is to enrich themselves at the expense of the American people. Until we stop sending uniparty members to Congress you can expect NOTHING to change. You want change? Vote Trump and then unelect anyone and everyone that opposes his agenda. Doing anything other than what I have outlined will result in the takeover of the USA by the Marxist Globalists.Trump, who deals internationally with the same globalist bankers you decry Hillary for hobnobbing with, is a major contributor to both wings of the uniparty. In fact, he has done more damage to the GOP than the Democrats this year, has sullied the "Conservative" label, and is likely in cahoots with the lot. Just because he hasn't held office doesn't make him an 'outsider', because 'outsiders' don't get far in New York City megadollar real estate development. She's pretty damned capitalist for a "Marxist Globalist", charging the speaking fees she does.
We are looking at the end of the USA this cycle if Hillary is elected.
And no revolution is going to save us once we have fallen in to the hands of the globalists. You can just forget about that.
@Smokin Joe
At least you admit what every Trump supporter I am reading lies to themselves about. So what if Trump is a liberal? He's YOUR liberal. So what if Trump will be a dictator? He'll be YOUR dictator. Those sentiments I have read far and wide. They do not care what he is or is not. He is their champion. He is their messiah. He is their Deliverer.
Right, sure. Keep telling yourself that despite the mountains of facts that Trump has funded, campaigned for and promoted the Uniparty for the desire to benefit himself.
Except your messiah funded, campaigned for, praised and voted for Marxist/Communist Bill DeBlasio less than 3 years ago. He and his companies are the very engines of crony Fascism and corrupt kleptocracy he suddenly now claims to be against and you people claim he was never part of.
Horseshiite. He was the gasoline that helped keep their engines running bub.
I'm pretty sure 99.99% of these 'people' you claim Trump is leading do not have gilded gold toilet seats like the ruling elite your own political savior does.
Your boy certainly does not lead me. He leads a mob of fanatics issuing death threats for people who will not genuflect their prince.
Well I hope you enjoy president Hillary, you deserve her, since you are unwilling to back the only candidate that might be able to stop and her anti-American, pro amnesty, pro Muslim brotherhood, pro corruption government. And by all means keep deluding yourself into thinking there is no difference between Hillary and Trump. Even the leader of the #NeverTrump movement, Ted Cruz, realizes that president Hillary would be a disaster for the USA. President Hillary would mean the end of Constitutional government in the USA. But go right ahead and keep those blinders on your eyes.There you go again, with the you "hate' him so you love her. :bsflag:
By the way, your hyperbole about "dictator" and "messiah" are way over the top.
Totally ridiculous comment. Hillary is a corrupt, incompetent, Marxist, Globalist hell bound to enrich herself (and Bill) by delivering the USA to her fascist globalist banker Bosses. Trump is an slightly boorish American patriot
Trump, who deals internationally with the same globalist bankers you decry Hillary for hobnobbing with, is a major contributor to both wings of the uniparty. In fact, he has done more damage to the GOP than the Democrats this year, has sullied the "Conservative" label, and is likely in cahoots with the lot. Just because he hasn't held office doesn't make him an 'outsider', because 'outsiders' don't get far in New York City megadollar real estate development. She's pretty damned capitalist for a "Marxist Globalist", charging the speaking fees she does.
I would rather avoid a revolution, but don't look to Trump for salvation, either.
Most people will seek a second opinion when their doctor gives them a terminal diagnoses. Hillary means the death of the USA. She has promises to begin the destruction of the USA within her first 100 days. Did you get that? Hillary is going to kill the USA, period. Nothing will save us once Hillary takes office. So yeah, I'm for Trump, as is everyone with a brain that wants to keep the USA a constitutional republic. At this point, with what we now know about Hillary, I'm thinking anyone that is not backing Trump wants to see the USA destroyed. (I will excluded a tiny few that have religious reasons to object to Trump.)
There you go again, with the you "hate' him so you love her. :bsflag:
I think they are both FUBAR.
I think they will, either one, be an absolute disaster unmitigated by a spineless Congress and a corrupt Court. I don't support either one of them, but one thing is for d@mned sure, my lack of support for him doesn't constitute support for her any more than my lack of support for her constitutes support for him. Neither one of them is going to take us one jot closer to being the Republic this country was intended to be.
He's all yours, and when those chickens come home to roost, they are going to be full of crap.
Trump & Hillary are on the same side.
Totally ridiculous comment. Hillary is a corrupt, incompetent, Marxist, Globalist hell bound to enrich herself (and Bill) by delivering the USA to her fascist globalist banker Bosses. Trump is an slightly boorish American patriot.
By the way, your hyperbole about "dictator" and "messiah" are way over the top.
Beyond over the top...they're paranoid delusions.
Who said they were conservatives? The game has been to say they are MORE conservative than their opponent, so we should elect them. YeeeeHaw! Here we go again, draw your ride and see if you can hang on for another eight years! Puhleeze.
Most people will seek a second opinion when their doctor gives them a terminal diagnoses. Hillary means the death of the USA. She has promises to begin the destruction of the USA within her first 100 days. Did you get that? Hillary is going to kill the USA, period. Nothing will save us once Hillary takes office. So yeah, I'm for Trump, as is everyone with a brain that wants to keep the USA a constitutional republic. At this point, with what we now know about Hillary, I'm thinking anyone that is not backing Trump wants to see the USA destroyed. (I will excluded a tiny few that have religious reasons to object to Trump.)
As I explained earlier the "conservative label" has been destroyed beyond repair by the likes of H.W. Bush, W. Bush, J. McCain, M. Romey, Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, William Krystal, etc, etc, etc.
Labels mean nothing now. You really need to get pass this label thing you keep going back too. The Marxist Globalists have taken over both parties. George W Bush does not have a conservative bone in his body and I am willing to bet you voted for W. Trump is vastly more conservative than W ever thought about being.Just put the crack pipe down and step away from the keyboard, please.
Beyond over the top...they're paranoid delusions."It can't happen here! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here)"
Like this?
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me."
Trump & Hillary are on the same side.
At least Trump would not arm ISIS and train ISIS unlike Hillary. At least Trump would not leave his people to die with out trying to get them help, unlike Hillary.
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me."Considering how ineffective the so-called generals have been against ISIS, I'd say Trump is probably fairly accurate when he says that.
At least Trump would not arm ISIS and train ISIS unlike Hillary. At least Trump would not leave his people to die with out trying to get them help, unlike Hillary.
Considering how ineffective the so-called generals have been against ISIS, I'd say Trump is probably fairly accurate when he says that.
For instance Trump knows that ISIS isn't a JV team, and that you don't put your "plan" for dealing with ISIS on your website for them to read.
Frankly, I'd like to ask some generals WTF they're doing providing logistical support and weapons to ISIS in the first place.
Of course Obama has decimated the general staff and military morale generally. No wonder two thirds of the men and women in uniform support Trump.
Well I hope you enjoy president Hillary, you deserve her, since you are unwilling to back the only candidate that might be able to stop and her anti-American, pro amnesty, pro Muslim brotherhood, pro corruption government. And by all means keep deluding yourself into thinking there is no difference between Hillary and Trump. Even the leader of the #NeverTrump movement, Ted Cruz, realizes that president Hillary would be a disaster for the USA. President Hillary would mean the end of Constitutional government in the USA. But go right ahead and keep those blinders on your eyes.
By the way, your hyperbole about "dictator" and "messiah" are way over the top.
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/this-poll-of-the-us-military-has-gary-johnson-tied-with-donald-trump-in-the-race-for-presidentJohnson may be a stalking horse for folks who haven't made up their minds completely, but the key takeaway is:
You don't know what Trump would do. He is totally 'effing ignorant about everything.Let me know then you build one of these.
You don't know what Trump would do.I don't think ANYONE knows what Trump would do, even Trump himself. But by golly, he can fake it.
Let me know then you build one of these.When my daddy leaves me a few hundred million and some nice real estate connections, I'll let you know.
(http://noticracia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1604050850.jpg)
Either way Hillary or Trump we are getting just what we deserve.
When my daddy leaves me a few hundred million and some nice real estate connections, I'll let you know.. I have no idea why these people think that building a big building with inherited money translates into being a good President. It's wacko to make that connection.
When my daddy leaves me a few hundred million and some nice real estate connections, I'll let you know.
@jmyrlefuller
From Wiki
The building (Trump Tower) broke ground in 1979, with the atrium, apartments, offices, and stores opening at a staggered schedule from February to November 1983.
Again from Wiki
Frederick Christ "Fred" Trump (October 11, 1905 – June 25, 1999)
Did you notice that Trump Tower was finished over 15 years prior to the death of Fred Trump?
Wiki
After Mary and Fred Trump wed in 1936, the couple had five children:Maryanne (born 1937), a federal appeals court judge; Frederick "Fred" Jr. (1938–81); Elizabeth (born 1942), an executive assistant at Chase Manhattan Bank; Donald (born 1946); and Robert (born 1948), president of his father's property management company. Fred, Jr. predeceased his father when he died of complications of alcoholism in 1981.[22]
He became sick with pneumonia in June 1999 and was admitted to Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, where he died a few weeks later. His funeral was held at the Marble Collegiate Church. His estate was estimated by his family at $250 million to $300 million.
I hope that the FACTS presented above put to rest the lie that Trump inherited all or even most of his wealth. Donald Trump borrowed one million dollars from his father in 70's and turn that into billions by the 1980's. He doubled his money over 12 times/he increased his initial wealth by 10,000%. His father was a builder of moderate to inexpensive housing in Brooklyn (Slum Lord). Donald built high income in Manhattan.
You #NeverTrumpers sure do have a problem with the truth.
@musiclady it is a flat out lie that Trump inherited his wealth.
Let me know then you build one of these.
(http://noticracia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1604050850.jpg)
Trump built that just like Obama killed bin Laden.
Trump built that just like Obama killed bin Laden.
@Luis Gonzalez @musiclady
You people are beyond crazy if you think Trump did not build Trump Tower! Oh wait y'all are part of Hillary's "you did not build that" club, I get it now.
From Wiki
The project involved complicated negotiations with different parties for the architecturally significant Bonwit Teller building itself, the land, and the airspace above a neighboring building. When negotiations were completed in 1978, The New York Times wrote "That Mr. Trump was able to obtain the location... is testimony to [his] persistence and to his skills as a negotiator."
Trump Tower was developed by (Donald) Trump and the Equitable Life Assurance Company
@jpsb If you're calling me a liar because I said Trump inherited money it is a great irony, since you're here proselytizing for the biggest liar in American political history. **nononono*
And it seems very clear to me that you have absolutely no idea of the context in which I made that statement. The context was asking for evidence of how Trump will actually destroy the conservative movement once in office. The comparison was Hillary enabling the registration and voting of up to ten million illegal voters, and packing the Supreme Court with progressive activists who will issue rulings finding that much of the progressive agenda is constitutionally mandated. That is something from which there is no recovery.
In response, I was quoted a serious of stupid statements/ridiculous threats made by some Trump supporters. I then pointed out that statements like "we'll all have to "bow down" to Trump", or that non-Trump supporters will be "hunted down with dogs" are not reality. They are braggadocious B.S., and do not reflect what will happen after the election.
Given that you very clearly did not pay attention to what had been said earlier, I'll just ask you directly:
Which do you believe is more likely to actually occur?
A) If Hillary is elected, she will 1) appoint progressive justices who will grant constitutional protections to much of the progressive agenda, and 2) loosen voting and immigration restrictions so as to enable the casting of votes by millions of new voters who should not be eligible; or,
B) If Trump is elected, we will all be forced to bow down to him, and everyone who didn't vote for him will be hunted down like dogs.
Which of those do you think, in reality, is the more plausible scenario?
@Luis Gonzalez @musiclady
You people are beyond crazy if you think Trump did not build Trump Tower! Oh wait y'all are part of Hillary's "you did not build that" club, I get it now.
From Wiki
The project involved complicated negotiations with different parties for the architecturally significant Bonwit Teller building itself, the land, and the airspace above a neighboring building. When negotiations were completed in 1978, The New York Times wrote "That Mr. Trump was able to obtain the location... is testimony to [his] persistence and to his skills as a negotiator."
Trump Tower was developed by (Donald) Trump and the Equitable Life Assurance Company
BTW... I'm not on any "Hillary club", but if you're going to say that Ttump "built" that tower, then yiubalsnhave to say that Obama "killed" bin Laden.
It's called intellectual honesty.
Well I hope you enjoy president Hillary, you deserve her, since you are unwilling to back the only candidate that might be able to stop and her anti-American, pro amnesty, pro Muslim brotherhood, pro corruption government.
And by all means keep deluding yourself into thinking there is no difference between Hillary and Trump.
Even the leader of the #NeverTrump movement, Ted Cruz, realizes that president Hillary would be a disaster for the USA.
President Hillary would mean the end of Constitutional government in the USA. But go right ahead and keep those blinders on your eyes.
By the way, your hyperbole about "dictator" and "messiah" are way over the top.
You #NeverTrumpers sure do have a problem with the truth.He inherited $300 million from his father when Fred died, probably controlled a good chunk of it before that because of Fred's Alzheimer's, and most importantly, because of nepotism in the Trump organization, inherited a wealth of connections and friends inside the real estate industry that a common man such as myself will never have.
@musiclady it is a flat out lie that Trump inherited his wealth.
It's called intellectual honesty.
He inherited $300 million from his father when Fred died, probably controlled a good chunk of it before that because of Fred's Alzheimer's, and most importantly, because of nepotism in the Trump organization, inherited a wealth of connections and friends inside the real estate industry that a common man such as myself will never have.
With those connections:
"Oh, he's Fred Trump's son! I know Fred. I'll give him a great deal."
Without:
*throws proposal in the trash* "We don't accept anything unsolicited."
Speaking of which, who the hell said Obama didn't kill Bin Laden anyway...besides you that is? :pondering:
I haven't been asked lately, but I'd sure as heck say Obama did not kill bin Laden. He didn't plug the leak from Deepwater Horizon either, but that didn't stop him from claiming credit for both.
Oh good grief...Obama gets credit for killing Bin Laden just like Carter got blamed for failing to rescue the Iran hostages.
Both operations were their decision for better or worse, and that goes with the Commander in Chief territory.
Not sure how this fits in, but here goes...
Obama had to be tricked into OKing the shooting of bin Laden by being convinced to issue vague orders. Valerie Jarret was kept out of the loop by the brass, and had she caught wind of what they were doing it she would have nixed the mission for the fourth time.
I don't think Trump had to be tricked into developing the tower. Intellectual honesty prohibits me from comparing the two events.
Speaking of which, who the hell said Obama didn't kill Bin Laden anyway...besides you that is? :pondering:
The SEALs who actually killed bin Laden:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/SEALs-Obama-binLaden-/2012/04/30/id/437580/
John Bolton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XLFGUGL7SY
Sean Hannity:
http://crooksandliars.com/david/hannity-osama-bin-laden-dead-thanks-george-b
Oh crap!
I almost forgot!
And this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELTroYeg1zQ
You all seem to think that we haven't been paying attention to what's been going on all these years.
Motivations have nothing to do with it.
If the owner of the company that built the structure gets credit for building it in spite of never having actually done any construction work, architectural design or laying any pipe, then the head of the government and CiC of the armed forces that killed bin Laden needs to be given the credit for killing him, in spite of the fact that he was thousands of miles away and never pulled the trigger.
Intellectual honesty.
Trump is an slightly boorish American patriot.
At least Trump would not arm ISIS and train ISIS unlike Hillary. At least Trump would not leave his people to die with out trying to get them help, unlike Hillary.Whether or not she tried, the command authority was Obama's, she had no power nor authority to order military action.
If you want to give credit to the guy who fought the operation every step of the way, then have at it. I won't. It would be like giving credit for welfare reform to Bill Clinton.But that's the way it works, dangnear anywhere.
Whether or not she tried, the command authority was Obama's, she had no power nor authority to order military action.
I think she was headfirst up to her cankles in setting up a situation that got our people killed in Benghazi, and likely that continues to get them killed throughout the region. She could set up arms deals, transfers of technology, and a host of other dirty deeds, but she couldn't order the military to do anything.
The lack of support is all on Barry, because he could have called it in over her objections. He is CinC.
But that's the way it works, dangnear anywhere.
Some one fights like a banshee to get something done and when it works out, they're pushed to the side and the same people he/she fought take the credit.
It sucks, but that's the way it goes.
To answer both of these....success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.So true! 888high58888
So true! 888high58888888high58888
Well I hope you enjoy president Hillary, you deserve her, since you are unwilling to back the only candidate that might be able to stop and her anti-American, pro amnesty, pro Muslim brotherhood, pro corruption government.
There were 16 Republican candidates capable of stopping Hillary, the weakest Democrat candidate since George McGovern. Unfortunately, Republican and Democrat voters alike decided to vote in Republican primaries for the one candidate who could not.
Stopping Hillary wasn't a concern for Trump supporters during the primaries. Neither was the Supreme Court, the Constitution, or touchback amnesty. So it is quite disingenuous to bring it up now to a group of people who did make it a priority back then but were shouted down by those cheering "He's gonna build a wall!"
There were 16 Republican candidates capable of stopping Hillary, the weakest Democrat candidate since George McGovern. Unfortunately, Republican and Democrat voters alike decided to vote in Republican primaries for the one candidate who could not.
Stopping Hillary wasn't a concern for Trump supporters during the primaries. Neither was the Supreme Court, the Constitution, or touchback amnesty. So it is quite disingenuous to bring it up now to a group of people who did make it a priority back then but were shouted down by those cheering "He's gonna build a wall!"
Totally ridiculous comment. Hillary is a corrupt, incompetent, Marxist, Globalist hell bound to enrich herself (and Bill) by delivering the USA to her fascist globalist banker Bosses. Trump is an slightly boorish American patriot.
@geronl
@Vulcan
Arguments like the Supreme Court should be judged on their own merits, not on whether or not the person making the argument is a hypocrite.
There are a ton of us who didn't support him in the primary who are stuck with him as the nominee because of those who did, and we're no more responsible for him being the nominee than are the NeverTrumps. So for those of us in that particular subgroup who have decided to vote for him, it's not disingenuous for us to being up things like the Supreme Court.
You're too rational for a political web forum man. This is taking years off your life. Trump is either the second coming of Christ or a demagog ten thousand times more evil than Hitler and Stalin combined. There's no middle ground (according to the loony toons who post here).
I like welding, I wonder if you find these types of loons in those forums? :)
Arguments like the Supreme Court should be judged on their own merits, not on whether or not the person making the argument is a hypocrite.
There are a ton of us who didn't support him in the primary who are stuck with him as the nominee because of those who did, and we're no more responsible for him being the nominee than are the NeverTrumps. So for those of us in that particular subgroup who have decided to vote for him, it's not disingenuous for us to being up things like the Supreme Court.
Trump is a disgrace. He's a skilled con-man who is very good at telling people what they want to hear; for the past year now, he's done just that, and it's unfortunate that so many have lapped it up and bought into it. For myself, I still find it nothing short of stunning that they can't see through him, or that they think he has actually changed.
You admitted you were wrong about Cruz, so what makes you so sure Trump isn't sincere?
You admitted you were wrong about Cruz, so what makes you so sure Trump isn't sincere?
There's nothing about politics he couldn't get elsewhere, that's for sure.
You admitted you were wrong about Cruz, so what makes you so sure Trump isn't sincere?
There's nothing about politics he couldn't get elsewhere, that's for sure.
What does Cruz have to do with Trump's history? Other than: "if I make Cruz look bad then maybe Trump won't look so bad".
So for those of us in that particular subgroup who have decided to vote for him, it's not disingenuous for us to being up things like the Supreme Court.
You can bring up the Supreme Court all you want, it still won't make sense that you'd expect a liberal to appoint a conservative.
Trump's sleaziness and pathological lying have been a constant since he first became known, and they've kept up, unchanging, during the last year and few odd months of his campaign. I haven't seen a thing to indicate he's sincere. He routinely contradicts himself and allows his progressive flag out to fly before his handlers pull it back in. Much of his agenda and his promises are progressive in nature.
(http://m2.paperblog.com/i/80/803731/psychiatric-help-5-cent-L-LbCKkK.jpeg)If that's your regular doctor, bite the bullet and go for a pro. You get what you pay for, and Lucy isn't even a dime store shrink.
(http://m2.paperblog.com/i/80/803731/psychiatric-help-5-cent-L-LbCKkK.jpeg)
(http://m2.paperblog.com/i/80/803731/psychiatric-help-5-cent-L-LbCKkK.jpeg)Direct link: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/22/business/opinion-donald-trump-europe/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/22/business/opinion-donald-trump-europe/)
My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority. I've long been a believer in the "look at the solution, not the problem" theory. In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.
You can bring up the Supreme Court all you want, it still won't make sense that you'd expect a liberal to appoint a conservative.
The list is meaningless and we all know it.
Better save your nickel...
@Smokin JoeJust pointing out your boy is a globalist, in thrall to globalist bankers and foreign business partners.
Not sure what you were hoping to accomplish by posting a snippet of an article that demonstrates Trump's depth of knowledge, of global economic issues and his business prowess on the world stage ...but thanks.
More Trump:
You ask about Europe in crisis as an opportunity for investment. I see the world in crisis at the moment. I'm a firm believer that there are always opportunities whether the markets or up or down, but it requires insight and sometimes creativity to see those opportunities. I have no doubt that the balance we need will be achieved, but it won't happen overnight.
Europe is a tapestry that is dense, colorful and deserving of continued longevity and prosperity. There are many pieces that must be carefully fitted together in order to thrive.
Our challenge is to acknowledge those pieces and to see how they can form a whole that works together well without losing any cultural flavor in the process. It's a combination of preservation along with forward thinking.
The future of Europe, as well as the United States, depends on a cohesive global economy. All of us must work toward together toward that very significant common goal.
The list is meaningless and we all know it.
You can bring up the Supreme Court all you want, it still won't make sense that you'd expect a liberal to appoint a conservative.
Just pointing out your boy is a globalist, in thrall to globalist bankers and foreign business partners.
Trump understands the globalist world and mindset and uses that knowledge to his advantage.Really? Where is the Trump Princess now? What else did Prince Al-Walid get out of that deal and why did it happen? It cracks me up that y'all talk about the Uniparty and can't see the Republicrats have finally made sure the POTUS election is just more of that.
That doesn't make him a globalist by any objective standard. :nono:
...and if anyone is 'in thrall' to the wealth and influence of big bankers and foreign business its the Clintons.
The list is meaningless and we all know it.
See you have no rational argument.
All you can do, when I post some very good reasons to vote Trump, is stamp your feet and say "I don't believe it". Well do you believe Hillary when she says he will grant amnesty to millions of illegals in her first 100 days? Do you believe Hillary when she says she will bring in a 100,000 rapefugees a year for years and years? Do you believe Hillary when she says she will raise our taxes? What kind of judges do you think Hillary will appoint? Pretend all you want but know this President Hillary will kill the Republic.
Just pointing out your boy is a globalist, in thrall to globalist bankers and foreign business partners.
Everyone of you sicken me.
I pray that when he wins, you'll come back to whatever common sense still remains.
PS: I'm not optimistic.
Trump and Pence and their campaign gave Cruz a list of 21 people who he was promised a justice would be selected from. Cruz isn't stupid and he knows not to trust Trump; that is why he's made his decision and the 'list' so public. The public now knows that IF Trump is elected he promised one of the justices to be on the list. Doesn't mean it's going to happen and it certainly doesn't mean that Trump will even be our POTUS. Cruz held out for something positive (if only a very slim positive) for the GOP to hold on to; a reason for the GOP electorate to vote for the candidate that is the very unpopular GOP nominee. The RNC screwed us with a corrupt convention. Cruz at least got a promise; pehaps a hollow promise, but what has anyone else done for us??
All right guys, group hug!!!
(http://newnownext.mtvnimages.com/2015/02/tumblr_lyez4nwWGb1qaclw91.gif)
@jpsb , that was extremely well said.
I can understand those who don't trust Trump. No reason to do so, really. But Hillary has been every open about exactly what she wants to do, her entire party is being her, and there is no question that stuff is going to happen if she is elected.
It is really difficult to have a substantive conversation here focusing just on Hillary, but it is needed. She'll get her Supreme Justice, likely more than one. That Justice will not only be the 5th vote to reverse Heller, but it will be the 5th vote necessary to approve Obama's backdoor, administrative legalization and path to citizenship. And that means somewhere around 10 million new voters who owe a big debt to the progressive machine.
How can we possibly come back from that? The systemic demographic advantage on the left will be too big to overcome. And that's not even mentioning the likely reversal of Citizens United as well, and resultant clampdown on the ability of anyone but progressives to get an effective message out to voters. I think some people forget that Citizens United was literally about an anti-Hillary movie "Hillary, the Movie", that the FEC banned from being released.
I really wish some of the sharper #neverTrumps, like @Smokin Joe , would address what the election of Hillary would mean without referencing Trump. Because if she wins -- which is very likely at this point -- we might as well not even have a GOP primary in 2020. The numbers will make it a Democrat lock from there moving forward.
Trump and Pence and their campaign gave Cruz a list of 21 people who he was promised a justice would be selected from. Cruz isn't stupid and he knows not to trust Trump; that is why he's made his decision and the 'list' so public. The public now knows that IF Trump is elected he promised one of the justices to be on the list. Doesn't mean it's going to happen and it certainly doesn't mean that Trump will even be our POTUS. Cruz held out for something positive (if only a very slim positive) for the GOP to hold on to; a reason for the GOP electorate to vote for the candidate that is the very unpopular GOP nominee. The RNC screwed us with a corrupt convention. Cruz at least got a promise; pehaps a hollow promise, but what has anyone else done for us??
Well said. Actually, Cruz has given me the single best reason to vote for Trump next month.
Trump has no one to blame but himself for the fracturing of what should be a solid coalition against an extremely weak candidate. I'm sure his supporters had a good ol' time during the primaries but now the butchers bill is due.
In the future candidates thinking of copying the Trump route to the nomination had best think again.
All right guys, group hug!!!
(http://newnownext.mtvnimages.com/2015/02/tumblr_lyez4nwWGb1qaclw91.gif)
They're still trashing Cruz, so I'd say the necessary lesson will not be learnt until Trump loses, and will never be if Trump somehow wins.
Pretend all you want but know this President Hillary will kill the Republic. By voting anyone but Trump you are helping to kill the republic.
And just how are you ever going to elect a conservative nationally once those tens of millions of new Marxist voter start voting? I'd really like to hear the #NeverTrump answer to that question.
I keep mulling over the different scenarios as I haven't voted for anyone that I think will continue the destruction of this country for several election cycles. Hillary = amnesty, millions of Muslim refugees, loss of 2nd amendment rights and tilting the Supreme Court to the left. Basically with Hillary we lose our country....
...IF one votes for Trump and Trump doesn't do anything that he said he was going to do, (and there is a very strong possibility) they are responsible for electing Trump and we would never know if taking a gamble on a 3rd party would pay off.
People didn't learn the lesson about libs with Romney. They won't with Trump. They will do what the Romney faithful do to this day...Blame conservatives for standing on principle. They will never accept responsibility for insisting on a liberal when we told them before the primary we would not be there if they got Romney as the candidate.
And we won't be there for Trump.
Well, we are voting for someone other than Trump or Hillary. What do you intend to do about it?? Wanna charge us with Treason for daring to vote our consciences?
I agree with that. After 2012, there was a "post mortem" and I disagreed with every conclusion the party leaders made. As usual, they walked away and learned all the wrong lessons. This planted the seeds of the Trump Nomination.
Well do you believe Hillary when she says he will grant amnesty to millions of illegals in her first 100 days? . . . Do you believe Hillary when she says she will raise our taxes? What kind of judges do you think Hillary will appoint? Pretend all you want but know this President Hillary will kill the Republic.
And just how are you ever going to elect a conservative nationally once those tens of millions of new Marxist voter start voting?
I'd really like to hear the #NeverTrump answer to that question.
Do you believe Trump when he says he will expedite the return of deported illegals, granting them 'legal' status? Do you believe Trump when he ways he will raise our taxes, even arguing that higher taxes stimulate the economy? What kind of judges do you think Trump will appoint, taking into account his contempt for the Bill of Rights and his 100% support of Kelo? Pretend all you want, but know this: President Trump will kill the Republic.
In the primary, Trump supporters had their choice between voting for a Conservative or voting for a liberal. They chose to vote for the liberal. And they cheered on Democrat crossover voters who switched sides to vote for the most unelectable candidate in the entire field. So don't lecture me about electing a Conservative nationally when you are so eager to sell out and vote for a liberal.
Wow. Persecution complex much?
Paranoid fantasies aside, nothing is going to "happen" to those who don't support Trump, except whatever the consequences are of Hillary Clinton winning the election. Those consequences will affect all of us. But if you're at peace with that, then you have no reason to be worried about Trump losing. Nobody is going to hunt you down with dogs.
The worst you'll get in terms of "retribution" will likely be some "I told you so's." I suspect you're more than capable of handling those.
It cracks me up that y'all talk about the Uniparty and can't see the Republicrats have finally made sure the POTUS election is just more of that.
Hint: They are both Globalists, they're both in thrall to the bankers, they both have business in Muslim countries.
Trump has famously said he was running for President of the United States, not President of the world. He is a pro-Brexit, euro skeptic who predicted Britain's leave referendum outcome.
Trump called NATO obsolete and has called for a major revamp of America's military commitments abroad and a re-balancing of trade agreements at home.
The notion that someone who's campaign slogan is Make America Great Again is himself is a globalist is absurd and points to an incomplete understanding of both Trump and globalism itself.
:nono:
My Opa tells me stories about his neighbors growing up, who dismissed all the threats they heard repeated on the radio and the local sturmabteilungs who roughed up locals in corner brahauses and gaststättes, to get out the vote for Hitler in the early 30s. All the talk and 'rumors' of what they intended to do to those in the country who did not care for the imposter and city thugs, was dismissed as 'crazy talk'.
Good point. Too bad it's wasted here.
Good points, well made. Too bad it's wasted here.
See you have no rational argument.
Weimar Germany had no constitutional, democratic traditions or reliable institutions dedicated to the preservation of basic decency and constitutional order. Apart from the crippled Weimar government, Germany went from one Imperial ruler to another. The military owed it's loyalty only to the government, not to the people or Constitution.
That is not the United States. I don't know if you have any military experience, or know many people of rank in the military, but the overwhelming majority of American military personnel would not tolerate that for a moment in this country.
They're not going to rebel based on a bad Supreme Court decision, but they'd also never tolerate anything like what you're describing. Nor would the vast majority of police/sheriff's departments, but if they did, they'd quickly find themselves outgunned by citizens, and a noncompliant military would be required -- and would refuse -- to enforce that.
Analogies to Weimar Germany don't fit the U.S.
@jpsb , that was extremely well said.Funny you should mention a GOP primary...we didn't have one this year--not for POTUS, not in North Dakota, and we didn't have a caucus, either. The reason I was given was that the GOP changed the rules and there wasn't time to get either up and running in time. As far as I am concerned it was the most honest election year ever, with the GOP finally demonstrating they don't give a flying f**k what we think.
I can understand those who don't trust Trump. No reason to do so, really. But Hillary has been every open about exactly what she wants to do, her entire party is behind her, and there is no question that stuff is going to happen if she is elected.
It is really difficult to have a substantive conversation here focusing just on Hillary, but it is needed. She'll get her Supreme Justice, likely more than one. That Justice will not only be the 5th vote to reverse Heller, but it will be the 5th vote necessary to approve Obama's backdoor, administrative legalization and path to citizenship. And that means somewhere around 10 million new voters who owe a big debt to the progressive machine.
How can we possibly come back from that? The systemic demographic advantage on the left will be too big to overcome. And that's not even mentioning the likely reversal of Citizens United as well, and resultant clampdown on the ability of anyone but progressives to get an effective message out to voters. I think some people forget that Citizens United was literally about an anti-Hillary movie "Hillary, the Movie", that the FEC banned from being released.
I really wish some of the sharper #neverTrumps, like @Smokin Joe , would address what the election of Hillary would mean without referencing Trump. Because if she wins -- which is very likely at this point -- we might as well not even have a GOP primary in 2020. The numbers will make it a Democrat lock from there moving forward.
What a crock!!You didn't address my point. Donald Trump has properties in several foreign countries, including Muslim countries. Donald Trump has been heavily leveraged at the same Global Banks everyone accused another candidate's wife of being in league with. Donald Trump has had business dealings with, and been bailed out by Saudis, particularly Prince Al-Walid, current owner of the former Trump Princess.
You guys in here have been treating Donald Trump like a school girl at a Boko Haram picnic.
Everyone of you sicken me. I pray that when he wins, you'll come back to whatever common sense still remains.
PS: I'm not optimistic.
Ultimately, what a Hillary presidency should look like is gridlock.
They're still trashing Cruz, so I'd say the necessary lesson will not be learnt until Trump loses, and will never be if Trump somehow wins.Yep. Like someone doing something which never should have worked, success this time will lead to multiple major failures down the road. Because it worked that once, it will be tried repeatedly even in the absence of subsequent success.
Yep. Like someone doing something which never should have worked, success this time will lead to multiple major failures down the road. Because it worked that once, it will be tried repeatedly even in the absence of subsequent success.
Funny you should mention a GOP primary...we didn't have one this year--not for POTUS, not in North Dakota, and we didn't have a caucus, either. The reason I was given was that the GOP changed the rules and there wasn't time to get either up and running in time. As far as I am concerned it was the most honest election year ever, with the GOP finally demonstrating they don't give a flying f**k what we think.
Needless to say, the Democrats don't either.
So here is how I see a Hillary POTUS: She's old and sick, and liable to not finish the term.
(That despite getting the very best medical care).
The Congress is just going to have to get off their dead, Liberal GOP asses and stop her. Shut the government down, if that's what it takes.
If they don't have the sand for that fight, the one they should have been fighting against Obama, well, the works is tits up anyway, and it really won't matter which liberal they lend support to.
One funny thing about government, though. Folks can sit on their keesters in DC and make all the rules they want. Then they have to enforce those rules.
In the last 8 years, Americans have made the AR-15 the most popular rifle in the country. Everyone uses it, from farmers to the police and Military. Everyone who has one knows how they work, how to maintain it, commonly how to field strip it, and a fair percentage can maintain them at the armorer's level. Untold millions have been spent on rifles and ammo and accessories, and I just don't see people giving them up and meekly handing them over. With 80,000,000 firearm owners, a mere three percent is an army of 2.4 million. Every weapon they capture, every box of ammo will be something they are familiar with and they can use--and I'm not counting the veterans.
This is the Second Amendment in action as seen in the Federalist, where the vast majority of the people, even without martial training, but by force of numbers and arms can act to secure their Liberty, even against a standing Army. This is the reason the Amendment exists, not gun clubs, not target ranges, not hunting, not ordinary thugs in the streets. If Hillary wants to try that out, and the Congress is foolish enough to not stop her, there will be blood on their hands.
Congress can interdict any program, incentive, or other attempt at the people's Liberty they have the will to. If we can't get a GOP dominated Congress to fight Hillary, we don't have a two party representative government, and the Republic is dead anyway. Control the House of Representatives, where all revenue measures must originate, and anything can be stopped. Simply refuse to fund it. Any of it--and that includes importing refugees to stuff the ballot boxes.
Ultimately, what a Hillary presidency should look like is gridlock.
I agree, and that's a perfect illustration why not voting for someone doesn't "send a message" of any value. The only effective way to "send a message" is to support the candidates you prefer in the primary. Not supporting the nominee sends way too many ambiguous messages because the reasons for not supporting a candidate vary widely between voters.Funny thing about sending a message. You need a receiver to get through.
I'm not saying that means everyone should vote for the nominee just because he's the nominee. I'm simply saying that if your motivation for not doing so is to "send a message", you've very likely to be disappointed.
See you have no rational argument.
All you can do, when I post some very good reasons to vote Trump, is stamp your feet and say "I don't believe it". Well do you believe Hillary when she says he will grant amnesty to millions of illegals in her first 100 days? Do you believe Hillary when she says she will bring in a 100,000 rapefugees a year for years and years? Do you believe Hillary when she says she will raise our taxes? What kind of judges do you think Hillary will appoint? Pretend all you want but know this President Hillary will kill the Republic. By voting anyone but Trump you are helping to kill the republic.
And just how are you ever going to elect a conservative nationally once those tens of millions of new Marxist voter start voting? I'd really like to hear the #NeverTrump answer to that question.
@geronl
Trump has famously said he was running for President of the United States, not President of the world. He is a pro-Brexit, euro skeptic who predicted Britain's leave referendum outcome.Break down the EU and make room for what follows.
Trump called NATO obsolete and has called for a major revamp of America's military commitments abroad and a re-balancing of trade agreements at home.NATO is a cold war artifact. If you don't think Russia (new, improved, "Communism is dead", lemon scented, vodka infused) is a threat, do we need NATO? "Rebalancing trade agreements at home?" What, between Indiana and Ohio? Trade agreements aren't the problem so much as regulations, tort law, and taxes which ensure American industry has difficulty competing. Government drove business away that could relocate, and has largely shut down (or tried hard to shut down) the industries which can't. Timber, coal, Oil and Gas, mining, smelting, the list goes on. Now, in some fit of Munchausen's Syndrome, the Government is going to step in and fix what it FUBAR'd? With more Government?
The notion that someone who's campaign slogan is Make America Great Again is himself is a globalist is absurd and points to an incomplete understanding of both Trump and globalism itself.Understanding propaganda and advertising might be more in line with understanding his campaign slogan. It's a slogan, bumper sticker material, get over it. If America isn't great now, what is it? Trump has his own 'trade partners' around the world. You think his actions in the oval office wouldn't reward those holdings, and his own trade partners to their mutual benefit? :silly:
:nono:
Ultimately, that is what an Obama presidency should have looked like, especially after 2014.Not all of the country is as well trained as Connecticut. Out here we look north to the Canadian Long Gun Registry, the one they finally gave up on because of a combination of cost overruns and noncompliance. If no one fills out the paper work, and the Government starts 'surrounding' or attacking people to make examples, it will be time to surround them.
Instead - well, they handed Obama a defacto dictatorship and spent all their capitol ensuring their own power and money train kept flowing.
With either a Hillary or Trump regime - the State grows to oppressive levels not seen since the Soviet Union collapsed, and Congress has already surrendered most of their duties to the Executive - so either despot that is given the throne is going to wield dictatorial power with impunity. Trump moreso than Hillary will.
As to arms, I'm not as optimistic as you are - because despite the numbers out there - we as a people are divided among more lines of division than there exist fault lines in the world. This whole election cycle is all the evidence anyone in the future history books will be able to glean and understand how hopelessly fractured the body politick is. And, given recent history when the government makes examples of the little people, or even threatens them - the people dutifully line up to surrender:
(http://joeforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Gun_owners_rush_to_register_weapons_2009900002_4956225_ver1.0_640_480.jpg)
(http://godfatherpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/1928-Germany-2013-Connecticut.jpg)
Not all of the country is as well trained as Connecticut. Out here we look north to the Canadian Long Gun Registry, the one they finally gave up on because of a combination of cost overruns and noncompliance. If no one fills out the paper work, and the Government starts 'surrounding' or attacking people to make examples, it will be time to surround them.Even New York has resisted the SAFE Act.
No more Wacos. Look at the response in Nevada (Bundy Ranch), for one.
Not all of the country is as well trained as Connecticut. Out here we look north to the Canadian Long Gun Registry, the one they finally gave up on because of a combination of cost overruns and noncompliance. If no one fills out the paper work, and the Government starts 'surrounding' or attacking people to make examples, it will be time to surround them.
No more Wacos. Look at the response in Nevada (Bundy Ranch), for one.
@Smokin JoeYep. Very few would ever consider just killing someone for the heck of it, and they're scary.
Having a gun and having the will to look someone in the eye and kill them are two different animals.
Yep. Very few would ever consider just killing someone for the heck of it, and they're scary.
But that Will increases in average folks when that other person is bent on doing you harm, or harming your family. Add in taking your stuff, even more, and threatening you with serious injury or death for doing the same benign thing you did yesterday, even more. And when people have nothing left to lose, or are faced with losing it all, they will strike back.
People figured what happened at Ruby Ridge was a fluke (at least the ones who were not familiar with MOVE and that incident. Most haven't heard of Gordon Kahl and the attack by Feds on him and his family. Most have heard of Waco, whether they bought the official BS or did a little homework and realized that was a massacre. The Montana "freemen" were scam artists (or at least presented as such in the media), so no one went out there and went to their aid. Bundy Ranch, though, was a turning point. The People squared off against the Feds. In the long run, the protest in Oregon went overtime and the Feds got even.
If the Federal Government becomes the aggressor, there will be resistance. The more they crack down, the more resistance that will provoke. Controlling media is their only hope of burying the pogrom, and what has been going on in that regard trips a flag, no matter which of the major candidates is elected.
Bundy Ranch, though, was a turning point. The People squared off against the Feds. In the long run, the protest in Oregon went overtime and the Feds got even.
I guess you must have missed what happened to Lavoy Finnicum and the bunch up there win Oregon.No, I didn't miss it.
Lots of applause with that 'Waco' - because the death toll was only one and no kids were killed.
But it's the same thing, just not on as big a scale.
I wouldn't kill just anyone. The bucket list. The ones who deserve to kick the bucket first.Everyone should have a list, just don't write it down anywhere.
Donald Trump has properties in several foreign countries, including Muslim countries. Donald Trump has been heavily leveraged at the same Global Banks everyone accused another candidate's wife of being in league with. Donald Trump has had business dealings with, and been bailed out by Saudis, particularly Prince Al-Walid, current owner of the former Trump Princess.
No one give a flying duck who bought the Trump Princess, its as meaningless as the gibberish you're spouting about Trump being "heavily leveraged" to banks around the world.@Longmire
Trump released over 100 pages of financial information about his business dealings which clearly show the debt to equity ratio of his real estate portfolio, which is the true measure of leverage, is actually quite modest.
You hate capitalism and capitalists..I get it, and you're clueless about the very real threat to national sovereignty globalism presents.
Fortunately, N. Dakota and America doesn't buy the brand of manure you're peddling. :nono:
No one give a flying duck who bought the Trump Princess, its as meaningless as the gibberish you're spouting about Trump being "heavily leveraged" to banks around the world.There you go again.
That they did. Everyone who was there, and just about everyone who was at Bundy Ranch at that standoff has been taken down by the Feds, in due time.Living modestly, letting no one know what resources you have, not keeping them in the same place, and walking softly creating few enemies in the 'hood are good cover for people who want to make a difference. If you treat everyone with respect, you can have the sort of mobility you might need, socially and otherwise. It pays to have friends in lowly places.
As my Opa said - there was only one Gestapo agent per village center in the farm country. A climate of fear by the brutal actions of the state made against the few in each village, kept everyone else's heads down out of fear of being the next target. THAT and the snitch programs instituted by the Reich, made everyone suspicious of everyone else. Old family feuds were exploited and lot of folks found themselves hauled in by the Gestapo over nothing more than an extra ration card for turning in a subversive.
Human nature is what it is. Nothing new under the sun.
Yes it's the dreaded NY Times and they Love Hillary...
If you're unable to navigate a financial statement and have to rely on the NY Slimes for your talking points...that's not my problem :shrug:
I'm not going to fact check some reporter from a liberal rag, or engage in a pointless debate about the value of the Trump brand.
Suffice it to say that Trump is very wealthy, his businesses are well run and he is not in 'thrall' to global banks or Saudi princes.
@Smokin Joe
I was raised in a family atmosphere that ain't none too fond of the fedgov. My dad was a mountain man reincarnated druid priest. He may have passed on some skills. And I have an uncle on my mom's side that is priceless. Some folks bought a piece of land behind another parcel and those people reneged on the grandfather clause letting a throughway. So my uncle got his Cat and pushed them out a road through BLM ground. That got them froggy. Told him he couldn't do that. They didn't pursue it. It wasn't his first road e o. My great aunt had my other uncle get her a piece of venison one July. Bragged about what a nice young man he was in church. The F&G showed up. Was gonna arrest her for poaching. She called my uncle. And he called his brother. They come along and suggested that fish cop leave. He got a little froggy. They explained that that old lady had lived her whole life there and that was her way of life. If she wanted venison any time of year she was going to have it. He didn't pursue it. I have more but, you know. If you needed something the public land could provide--then provide. Screw 'em.
@Smokin JoeWe managed game just fine. They got thin, we backed off, they got too thick, we thinned 'em out. None of it went to waste. We knew enough poor folks to pass some around. "Do you know anyone who might want some....? We have some extra. " always got a positive response, and was always worded in such a way as to preserve dignity.
I was raised in a family atmosphere that ain't none too fond of the fedgov. My dad was a mountain man reincarnated druid priest. He may have passed on some skills. And I have an uncle on my mom's side that is priceless. Some folks bought a piece of land behind another parcel and those people reneged on the grandfather clause letting a throughway. So my uncle got his Cat and pushed them out a road through BLM ground. That got them froggy. Told him he couldn't do that. They didn't pursue it. It wasn't his first road e o. My great aunt had my other uncle get her a piece of venison one July. Bragged about what a nice young man he was in church. The F&G showed up. Was gonna arrest her for poaching. She called my uncle. And he called his brother. They come along and suggested that fish cop leave. He got a little froggy. They explained that that old lady had lived her whole life there and that was her way of life. If she wanted venison any time of year she was going to have it. He didn't pursue it. I have more but, you know. If you needed something the public land could provide--then provide. Screw 'em.
Analogies to Weimar Germany don't fit the U.S.. Maybe in 20-30 years, who knows. But we're not close to that yet.
Only because you don't want to see it.
If you're unable to navigate a financial statement and have to rely on the NY Slimes for your talking points...that's not my problem :shrug:
I'm not going to fact check some reporter from a liberal rag, or engage in a pointless debate about the value of the Trump brand.
Suffice it to say that Trump is very wealthy, his businesses are well run and he is not in 'thrall' to global banks or Saudi princes.
I'm sorry to keep correcting you, but you totally miss the point of being "here."Nice. You just implied everyone on the forum not in the bag for Trump is a liar. Kiss my ass, jerk. Now go whine to the moderators, I dare you!
You see "here" you get to make up any old crap you want! That's the beauty of the Internet Political Forum. Everybody is an expert on everything! From the cowpoke to the homemaker to the barista, they're all political and financial and foreign policy geniuses!
Listen, know your place – fabricate some outrageous and insulting lie about Trump, then you'll get along just fine "here."
Show me a hundred thousand brownshirts massing, threatening violence, and engaging in organized disruptions of other political parties.
Okay, ten thousand.
A thousand?
Uh, fifty?
A dozen?
I mean, I can go online and watch old videos of massive Nazi Party rallies. Surely, in this age of cell phone videos and the internet, I should be able to see these violence-fueled Trump supporters massing in paramilitary units and intimidating peaceful citizens. Heck, I can see violent rallies and rioting by BLM members, who presumably far fewer in numbers than the massive number of proto-fascist Trump supporters who are going to send the rest of us to the ovens.
So where are they? Where is the paramilitary organization? The pattern of violent disruption of opposition political rallies (again, we can see that from the left....) Where is the evidence that what you're talking about is anything more than blowing wildly out of proportion the braggadocious stupidity of a few keyboard commandos?
Maybe the reason I'm not seeing it is because this melodramatic hand-wringing is without any rational basis in fact.
I'm sorry to keep correcting you, but you totally miss the point of being "here."
You see "here" you get to make up any old crap you want! That's the beauty of the Internet Political Forum. Everybody is an expert on everything! From the cowpoke to the homemaker to the barista, they're all political and financial and foreign policy geniuses!
Listen, know your place – fabricate some outrageous and insulting lie about Trump, then you'll get along just fine "here."
The people here are as mentally ill as Glenn Beck.
Are you a "people"? You're here... :tongue2:
The people here are as mentally ill as Glenn Beck.
Are you a "people"? You're here... :tongue2:
Mmmmmm hmmmm Rules for thee, but not for me? :silly:
Besides me.
There does seem to be a perspective issue among some here that is concerning. The pendulum can swing too far the other way.
Mmmmmm hmmmm Rules for thee, but not for me? :silly:
Now, where have I heard that before? :pondering:
Hitler was just a buffoon with a following. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
I guess that's what I find so frustrating/astonishing. There are reasonable arguments against voting for Trump. So I don't understand why some of those folks feel the need to go so wildly over the top by trying to turn a poorly organized, half-assed populist movement that is crumbling before our eyes into the second coming of the Third Reich. Trump isn't Hitler, and the U.S. isn't the Weimar Republic. It makes them seem like they're not living in reality, which discredits their POV.
I guess that's what I find so frustrating/astonishing. There are reasonable arguments against voting for Trump. So I don't understand why some of those folks feel the need to go so wildly over the top by trying to turn a poorly organized, half-assed populist movement that is crumbling before our eyes into the second coming of the Third Reich. Trump isn't Hitler, and the U.S. isn't the Weimar Republic. It makes them seem like they're not living in reality, which discredits their POV.Let's put it this way. The comparisons have been done, and the fact has been pointed out that the essential elements in the rise to power of such dictators are a willing dictator and a willing populace. There have been some serious indications that the candidate neither knows nor cares about the governing Supreme Law of the nation, and that contempt is cause for concern that he might not follow it. Ordinarily, not only would that candidate have failed to progress to the nomination, but would have been out early. Add to that, however, a vocal, angry, cult of personality, one which advocates ignoring rules to 'get things done', whose members often promise vengeance against those who do not support it, and suddenly that person becomes more dangerous than they would ever have been in more ordinary times, with such assertions as they could gun people down on 5th Avenue and his supporters would not care or would applaud the act.
I know, the response from some of the NeverTrump people is "they started it!", or "do you here the crazy stuff some of those Trumpturds say?!" But the NeverTrump people are supposed to be the civilized, sober, and rational ones. The whole basis of their opposition is "we're better/smarter than that."
Well damn, then start acting like it.
Never underestimate the power of hate...for DONAL J TRUMP! 888high58888Your tagline reminds me that the guys still in caves on Iwo weren't home in Hiroshima or Nagasaki for the fireworks.
I guess that's what I find so frustrating/astonishing. There are reasonable arguments against voting for Trump. So I don't understand why some of those folks feel the need to go so wildly over the top by trying to turn a poorly organized, half-assed populist movement that is crumbling before our eyes into the second coming of the Third Reich. Trump isn't Hitler, and the U.S. isn't the Weimar Republic. It makes them seem like they're not living in reality, which discredits their POV.
I know, the response from some of the NeverTrump people is "they started it!", or "do you here the crazy stuff some of those Trumpturds say?!" But the NeverTrump people are supposed to be the civilized, sober, and rational ones. The whole basis of their opposition is "we're better/smarter than that."
Well damn, then start acting like it.
I'm sorry to keep correcting you, but you totally miss the point of being "here."
You see "here" you get to make up any old crap you want! That's the beauty of the Internet Political Forum. Everybody is an expert on everything! From the cowpoke to the homemaker to the barista, they're all political and financial and foreign policy geniuses!
Listen, know your place – fabricate some outrageous and insulting lie about Trump, then you'll get along just fine "here."
Gotta be one of two things going on with you, @aligncare . Either you're a glutton for punishment or you're a troll.
Let's put it this way. The comparisons have been done, and the fact has been pointed out that the essential elements in the rise to power of such dictators are a willing dictator and a willing populace.
Try to cut A/C some slack. He's been a poster in this forum for quite awhile and at one point in time he actually demonstrated some logic, made some very good points and had some decent posts. 'Trumpism' you know, does very strange things to people.
I'll say this for @aligncare : He's proving every day that TBR is nothing like the forum many of us came from. No matter how much shuck and jive he puts out, management still lets him post. Even Facebook knocks trolls off once in a while.
As a #NeverTrump, it's not that Trump is Hitler, it is the fact that he possesses many characteristics that Hitler did. There is no denying that like Hitler, Trump is a narcissist. There is no denying that like Hilter, Trump is a demagogue. There is no denying that Hitler and Trump have demonstrated psychopathic and sociopath personalities. There have been numerous comparisons done and articles written with the latest from the Guardian entitled "The New Furor".
With all due respect, the people making those comparisons are either ignorant, or deliberately making a false comparison for political motives of their own.
With all due respect, the people making those comparisons are either ignorant, or deliberately making a false comparison for political motives of their own. Or at least, so blinded by their personal dislike for Trump that they're willing to overlook reality just to get in a cheap shot. The truth is that even apart from the completely different circumstances in the two countries, Trump completely lacks Hitler's single-minded, life-long political visions and lust for power.
Have you actually read much about Hitler? He was absolutely driven by extreme, highly-developed social/political beliefs that were the focus of almost his entire adult life. From his late-20's on, he had a monomaniacal focus on achieving and exercising supreme political power for his own ends, and ruthlessly took every opportunity to advance that goal. He was such a hard-line extremist, and so dedicated to the acquisition of power, that at the ripe old age of 34. he led an attempted coup. When that failed, he wrote Mein Kampf. At thirty-four.
In contrast to Hitler's lifelong quest for absolute power, and extremist political/social beliefs, Trump has focused his life entire life on getting rich, and marrying beautiful women. He's a hedonist, not a power-obsessed political extremist. Throughout his life, there hasn't been even a hint of a lust for political power, or some underlying set of rigid, fanatical political beliefs that would fuel such a lust. He's basically a political dilettante, not a freak who has devoted his entire life to acquiring absolute political power. He is the exact opposite of Hitler in that regard.
Additionally, some of you guys are simultaneously advancing two directly contradictory arguments about Trump, and apparently are blind to the contradiction.
On the one hand, he's a Hitlerian political fanatic, bent on using his Trumpist brownshits to turn this country into a fascist dictatorship to be run by him for the glorification of his own ego and beliefs. He's a power-obsessed madman, and we're all doomed when he takes command!
But on the other hand, he really has no interest in actually winning the election at all, doesn't even care of if he wins, and is just in the race to help Hillary win. That's the theory, right? So, what kind of Hitler-wannabe doesn't even care about wielding power, and is just in a race for his own amusement, and to hand the election to someone else?
Personally, it is Trump's detachment from the issues and ideological ambivalence that (sadly) make him a more attractive candidate than Hillary. At least there is a chance he can be influenced or compelled on occasion to do the right thing.
Or have just read a history book or 50, which is something you might consider before making such ridiculous statements again.
You also need a willing military and no other strong institutions. Nor is there any evidence that the "willing populace" actually exists. Again, true fascists develop pseudo-military organizations that actively use violence to eliminate rivals. They have organized street gangs, often uniformed, and sufficient goon lieutenants to serves as sub-commanders and willing leaders.If you wait for the spiffy uniforms to come in, you waited too long. Besides, don't the red hats count for something? After all Trump is cheap when it comes to shelling out for that stuff.
Trump has none of that. There is zero evidence of actual street level gangs or violence on anything other than a negligible scale. Rather than pointing to actual violence, or anything remotely resembling something like the Sturmabteilung, you're pointing to ridiculous threats made by keyboard commandos in their basements. KellyAnne Conway is not Ernst Roehm. Sean Hannity is not Joseph Goebbels. Mike Pence is not Heinrich Himmler.You missed the point. It isn't a question of going "Oh sh*t, we're being marched to the 40 & 8's on the way to the ovens." By then it would be too late, anyway. The whole idea is to prevent any of that, to stop it before it gets rolling. encouraging punching protesters and paying for legal fees is far enough off the charts. Step outside normalcy bias and the perspective changes.
If you really want to be honest about this, the only demonstrated potential for such a movement lies on the left. There, we actually do have large street gangs using physical intimidation to suppress rivals. There is BLM, and radical Latino gangs/movements on the West Coast. There are SJW actually growing violent, shutting down attempts by conservatives to speak, and in many cases physically assaulting political opponents -- including Trump supporters -- with whom they disagree. Do I need to post those videos?No need, to post the videos. That isn't potential, by the way, they are doing it. But a second look shows they are doing it to their own neighborhoods, and there is a profit motive. The funny part is that while pointing to those groups who anger Trump followers, you ignore the possibility of those leftists (like the Communists those Nationalists were opposed to) getting outside of those neighborhoods and eliciting a backlash that would put countering violent groups in the streets to widespread acclaim.
There is your real threat of fascism. Not just threats, but actual violence to back up those threats. Political opponents beaten up, law enforcement officers [/I]murdered.[/I] And those groups have an actual ally running for office. They'll have control of the Justice Department, which may well turn an institutional blind eye to acts of voter intimidation and violence by the left. You'll have a leftist dominated federal court system that will likely give them comparatively free rein as long as they can make anything other than a laugh out loud argument. All of this is real.Right. Communists (Marxists) versus fascists (who believe in government control of privately owned industry, far closer to the GOP). Violence justifying a violent backlash. Sounding a little Wiemar yet?
Why aren't you concerned and posting about that? Objectively, there is your true, real threat of fascism, and it's not even that far away.No, it is a threat of communism, not fascism. Read my comment above how that could trigger the very backlash you are too busy saying doesn't exist. One riot in the wrong neighborhood, and it'll happen.
It is an infinitely more credible and realistic threat than some clown making a stupid remark about dogs.I made no remark about dogs, but currently they are used to provide probable cause to pick through your stuff if you really don't want your vehicle searched because your tail light was out. The assertion only need be made that your property is the result of drug dealing and the police have it, you have to sue to get it back. Is that totalitarian enough for you? As for a real threat, not where I live.
The leftist thugs are real, and active.Yep. What amazes me is that you don't see both 'sides' have their thugs, neither will follow the Constitution, and both want totalitarian control. Do you see a dictator as okay, so long as he is 'your' dictator? TO me, that totalitarianism is a threat, either way.
When someone asks how it was that we let actual fascists come to power, I guess you can at least say "well, it's better than having a guy who was in a porn video.You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Instead, your emotional attachment to Trump is blinding you to what people are trying to say, either that or your fear of Hillary is. Hillary is an effing MARXIST, not a fascist. I don't want her, either, frankly. But you are so emotionally invested in defending Trump, and the people supporting him, that it is like he said, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and nobody would care. You refuse to see that there are some serious problems with him, too.
@Smokin Joe , if you are truly concerned about fascism in this country, and aren't just using that as a cheap political argument against Trump, then you are currently aiming your fire in the wrong direction.Nope, we're surrounded.
Either way, with Clinton or Trump we lose. Hope and pray that we keep the Senate.
Try to cut A/C some slack. He's been a poster in this forum for quite awhile and at one point in time he actually demonstrated some logic, made some very good points and had some decent posts. 'Trumpism' you know, does very strange things to people.What he's experiencing here is "cognitive dissonance:" the idea that the truth about a New York City Republican much like himself is far more hideous than he's willing to accept. So he simply doesn't. People who tell the truth are "haters." Every evidence of wrongdoing is either evidence that Trump is the most brilliant man on the planet or a lie by a hater, and that people who really know Trump revere the man just as he does. He has no idea that he is being psychologically manipulated.
The federal government is lost unless we reset it with an Article V Convention of States. I'm voting local races, not because they won't be overruled on everything by the courts. But it will buy us time.
My state sends Republicans to Washington 90% of the time. They've failed us.
You didn't respond to a single substantive point I made, and instead just cited an introductory sentence as if I provided absolutely no support for it.
If you wait for the spiffy uniforms to come in, you waited too long. Besides, don't the red hats count for something? After all Trump is cheap when it comes to shelling out for that stuff. You missed the point. It isn't a question of going "Oh sh*t, we're being marched to the 40 & 8's on the way to the ovens." By then it would be too late, anyway. The whole idea is to prevent any of that, to stop it before it gets rolling. encouraging punching protesters and paying for legal fees is far enough off the charts. Step outside normalcy bias and the perspective changes.
Start with "It can happen here, and then see what you see.
First, I think you need to get your 'isms' straight. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism_and_communism-socialism.html (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism_and_communism-socialism.html) Neither is a friend of a Constitutional Republic.
Nope, we're surrounded.
The whole idea is to prevent any of that, to stop it before it gets rolling. encouraging punching protesters and paying for legal fees is far enough off the charts. Step outside normalcy bias and the perspective changes.
Start with "It can happen here, and then see what you see. Many of us have talked with people who were there for the last time this sort of thing happened. While the exesses are obvious in retrospect, they didn't just pop up overnight, they grew out of other things, and those trends, subtle at first can be the harbingers of worse to come. The objective is to see it before the situation develops to critical mass.
Unfortunately, the Republic is not represented by either major party this time around.
For those of us trying to spot trends before events happen to make them obvious, it is challenging, but small deviations from the desired course add up fast. If you choose to not see them, that is something you do at your peril. If you wait until folks in spiffy uniforms are shooting people in the streets, it's too late. The idea is to keep things from ever getting there (again) by spotting it before it happens.
In contrast to Hitler's lifelong quest for absolute power, and extremist political/social beliefs, Trump has focused his life entire life on getting rich, and marrying beautiful women. He's a hedonist, not a power-obsessed political extremist. Throughout his life, there hasn't been even a hint of a lust for political power, or some underlying set of rigid, fanatical political beliefs that would fuel such a lust. He's basically a political dilettante, not a freak who has devoted his entire life to acquiring absolute political power. He is the exact opposite of Hitler in that regard.
You havent actually made a point. theres no reason to respond to completely fallacious 'reasoning' that every Trump backer reads from a script.
Fine, Trump is Caligula. Let's work from there.
Starting from there, he's not running for Emperor/Principate. If he was elected President, and walked into a wedding to rape both the bride and groom, I suspect he wouldn't be able to get away with it as easily as Caligula did.
Trump is Bill Clinton without the ideology. While reprehensible, that doesn't present nearly the threat to the nation that Mrs. Bill does.
You're pointing to two isolated instances early in the campaign when his rallies were subject to deliberate disruption. It was the wrong reaction, and it stopped. There is none of that going on now, and more importantly, no effort to disrupt the political activities of his opponent, which is really a hallmark of fascism. And while you chose to focus on the lack of uniforms, you didn't address the utter lack of street thugs period, uniformed or not. To the extent such people exist, they are exclusively on the left, and yet you seemed remarkably unconcerned about them. It is Trump's rallies that are being disrupted, and Trump's supporters that are being assaulted. Isn't the danger from the left that much greater?Left/Right/fascist/communist/ all seem to be pretty much muddled. National Socialism was indeed a leftist ideology, and not on the Right as the Marxists assert (except perhaps, from a Marxist viewpoint). But from where my little butt polishes the seat, the GOP is on the Left, too. That is how far BOTH the GOP and the Democrats have slid toward Statism, and they did it together, with the GOP's progress only hindered by staying less totalitarian then the Democrats, who have been getting more so. The GOP has been flying formation with them. I'm a Constitutionalist, Original Intent. I have believed as I do for decades, it was the Democrats, followed by the GOP that left the building.
What I see is that being far closer to happening from fascists on the left, than from Trump's supporters. And if that is truly your major concern, then you should be pulling out all the stops to prevent those leftist goons from getting their woman into power.
Very old saying that if fascism comes to the U.S. it will be from the left, not the right. And frankly, what Hillary is pushing really is fascism more than socialism. Or at best, a mix. Either way, the authoritarian streak is being found among those on the left, right down to personal conduct, speech codes, safe spaces, government-mandated gender-pronouns, and all the rest of it. With the street thugs and a compliant DOJ to back them up.
Who passed the laws that said that the Government can seize your stuff? That they can conscript the food in your cupboards, the ammo in your gun cabinet, the vehicles in your garage/drive? Who signed the law that limited sales of new class III weapons to police and military? Who was president during the Ruby Ridge incident in Idaho? When the Waco (Mt. Carmel) raid and standoff were initiated? Who started the EPA? What one group hasn't been able to pass, the other has, often with the full support of the people who would have opposed it if the other group had proposed it. But ever, at least in my lifetime, advancing toward a more Statist, totalitarian government. Failure to recognize that will have it come about. Neither Party is your friend if you are a fan of a Constitutional Republic. If you like one of the Kabuke dancers better than the other one, that is up to you, but at least know the game for what it is.
Otherwise, explain the failure of the GOP controlled Congress to shut down the Obama Agenda.
Well said Joe. Well said.When I was a kid, there was a saying "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."
But none so deaf as those who refuse to hear.
Instead some call us Hillary supporters and paranoid delusionals for daring to give the warnings.
Oh well.
Nothing new under the sun.
Then this really has nothing to do with Trump at all.There you go again.
Any you still haven't pointed to the Trump/GOP equivalent to the violent leftist mobs in the streets, and DOJ complicit in covering for them.
Or have just read a history book or 50, which is something you might consider before making such ridiculous statements again.
So...you are denying that Hitler like Trump was a narcissit? A demagogue? A psychopath and a sociopath? Several months ago, I posted several posts giving links to various different publications from historians and psychiatrists and psychiatric publications declaring Trump a narcissist, and comparing him to Hitler. I was merely pointing out the obvious similar personality traits of Hitler and Trump.
So...you are denying that Hitler like Trump was a narcissit? A demagogue? A psychopath and a sociopath? Several months ago, I posted several posts giving links to various different publications from historians and psychiatrists and psychiatric publications declaring Trump a narcissist, and comparing him to Hitler. I was merely pointing out the obvious similar personality traits of Hitler and Trump.
Then this really has nothing to do with Trump at all. You've rejected the entire GOP itself. That's fine, but it also means there's no point in even voting down-ticket, or even participating in politics at all. Because there is absolutely zero chance that a new conservative party could get anywhere before the left and Democrats have a permanent stranglehold on power.Nothing in politics is permanent. Nice to know where you stand: for the demise of the Republic. Duly noted.
Note, that wasn't the lack of enough Republican votes. the GOP had a majority in both House and Senate. No, it was the interruption of cash flow to the corruptocracy in DC that precluded a shutdown. The rest was mostly theater. If the GOP had had the collective vertebrae to do it, they wouldn't be looking at maybe losing the Senate.
Lack of enough conservative votes in Congress to win a shutdown. It would have been expending political capital while not accomplishing anything other than to give more seats to those on the left the next time around.
There you go again. As I said, the idea is prevention. Trump hasn't had a DOJ to play with, and that is just the beginning of the power that would be there for a vindictive narcissist to aim at people who wouldn't 'make deals' with him. It is well enough documented that a significant number of those who do make 'deals' with him end up getting screwed. So again I ask are you sure you want to give him the chance to do more damage than he dreamed of as a mere fatcat, politician buying, real estate developer?
Any you still haven't pointed to the Trump/GOP equivalent to the violent leftist mobs in the streets, and DOJ complicit in covering for them.
So maybe we can promote mystery-ak to JimRob authority level and have her zot people?
That was sarcasm, right? The last thing this forum needs is zotting people merely for their political opinions.
I certainly saw it as sarcasm....
Funny how a person named after someone who didn't exist, who was a construct designed to deceive would keep harping at those who forsee a bad outcome.
I tend to see the worst in Trump myself, and his campaign's strong-man worship of personality and power at the expense of the scapegoat du jour has honestly reminded me also of the rise of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
But in fair defense of @Maj. Bill Martin, I think the Major has drawn very credible distinctions between the current situation in the US versus Weimar Germany, and between Hitler's pursuit of power and Trump's pursuit of hedonism. The major has been very clear throughout his posts that he did not support Trump in the primaries and only plans to vote for him now because Hillary is worse. Unlike those who continue to insult my intelligence in their insistence that Trump is some kind of omnicompetent visionary, the major is clear about Trump's many faults, he just doesn't reach the same conclusions about what those faults mean in this country's present context.
I agree with you @Smokin Joe that we might be experiencing the leading edge of a very bad change in American politics and values as the Republican Party now resorts to many of the same tactics that the Democrats have used for years. I hope we can discuss those concerns without making enemies of people who see the current election from a very similar, but not identical, perspective.
Finding myself in agreement with much of what you both say Major and Smokin, I'll put on my best Rodney King hat and ask "Can't we all just get along?".
Finding myself in agreement with much of what you both say Major and Smokin, I'll put on my best Rodney King hat and ask "Can't we all just get along?"
That was sarcasm, right? The last thing this forum needs is zotting people merely for their political opinions.
@HoustonSam
Damnedest thing I've ever gone through during an election.
I have no idea what I will do, still, this late in the day.
@HoustonSam
I am at a point I haven't found myself in, this late in the race, in any other presidential election.
Usually (if I may brag a bit) I am pretty straight-forward, look at all the facts, come to a logical conclusion, kind of guy.
I'm even a bit embarrassed that I haven't figured this one out yet.
The only thing I know for sure is that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
I have the same 3 options that face us all:
(1) Vote Trump
(2) Vote third party
(3) Skip the presidential election, and only vote down ballot.
I have heard all the arguments, backwards and forwards, pro and con, on why I should or why I should not vote for Trump.
Many are good arguments.
I've made some myself, in both directions, sometimes, but admittedly, more on the against side.
Damnedest thing I've ever gone through during an election.
I have no idea what I will do, still, this late in the day.
Do you really want him to be able to launch strategic weapons?
When he has demonstrated he will attack without getting facts, lie about the facts, and redouble the attack--on the wrong person.
I have been all over the problems with Mr. Trump which indicate character flaws which would preclude any fitness for the job of POTUS.
Funny how a person named after someone who didn't exist, who was a construct designed to deceive would keep harping at those who forsee a bad outcome.
Join the club. Sometimes I wish I could look at this in a more shallow way, then I could just say "Screw it, vote for Trump. Anybody who doesn't support my decision is a Hillary supporter." But management prefers we take a more nuanced stand than that.
@GrouchoTex , @HoustonSam
It's one of those years. Each of those choices is morally defensible, so good luck.
Starting from there, he's not running for Emperor/Principate. If he was elected President...
If he was elected President, and walked into a wedding to rape both the bride and groom, I suspect he wouldn't be able to get away with it as easily as Caligula did.
Trump is Bill Clinton without the ideology. While reprehensible, that doesn't present nearly the threat to the nation that Mrs. Bill does.
Maj. Bill, so the lightbulb switches on? I'm surprised it took you so long. But, you are one of the thoughtful and sincere posters here at TBR. The others, are but #NeverTrumpLosersAndReprobates.
I wish you well, Major.
Coming from a guy that stupidly pulls race cards, that doesn't mean much.
..and all 3 have consequences.
He can give the orders, but the military must execute it, and I think you are out of your mind if you think senior military officers would follow an order to execute an nuclear strike without an extraordinarily good reason.
'Elected'?? I prefer the term 'seated'. I no longer believe that our 'elections' are anything but manipulated shell games'.
Not in my estimation.
I think senior military officers have demonstrated they will follow any orders, even when those orders diminish and emasculate their own forces; allow ambassadors to die at the hands of Jihadists and wipe out morale while pushing perverted social experimentation, even in combat zones. I think Obama purged the brass of most of those whom he felt would oppose his fundamental transformations.
The truth is those consequences aren't as easy to predict as some partisans on each side may claim. If they were, this would be this easy. If we all knew, and could prove factually that Trump will definitely be better than Hillary, it would be easy. Same with the converse. And third parties are a crapshoot as well. That's why the dogmatists on either side kind of bug me a bit. There are a lot of unknowns here, and too many of them for predictions to have a lot of certainty. No shame in guessing wrong if that's how it turns out after the fact.
You're forgetting one indisputable fact about Donald Trump: he is a patriot who values America above globalization and multiculturalism - something that I used to believe was a republican value, out of place here at TBR.
I think senior military officers have demonstrated they will follow any orders, even when those orders diminish and emasculate their own forces; allow ambassadors to die at the hands of Jihadists and wipe out morale while pushing perverted social experimentation, even in combat zones. I think Obama purged the brass of most of those whom he felt would oppose his fundamental transformations.
How much more will they follow the orders of someone with a short temper who promises them glory under the auspices of 'making America great again'??
A culture, country and a military that is no longer governed by the morality we once had, while embracing ideas more akin to Empire than Republic, is a culture and country with a military that won't blink twice when a madman whose ego is bruised by an insult from a foreigner, would unload whatever they are told to unload.
heh heh heh
I had a coworker telling me this morning I needed to mill and sand 3 trim sticks 1 1/4" wide to cover 1 3/4" gaps. He was even drawing me pictures. I finally told him to take his stupid BS somewhere else because I couldn't handle it at 6 a.m. And then I got snarky with anyone in sight. Someone else brought me a piece of bubble wrap and told me it would probably save my life (popping bubbles). I told him it would probably save his too. heh heh heh
You're forgetting one indisputable fact about Donald Trump: he is a patriot who values America above globalization and multiculturalism - something that I used to believe was a republican value, out of place here at TBR.
Maj. Bill, so the lightbulb switches on? I'm surprised it took you so long. But, you are one of the thoughtful and sincere posters here at TBR. The others, are but #NeverTrumpLosersAndReprobates.
I wish you well, Major.
You mean an honest stand ........ because I'm not supporting Hillary in the least by not supporting Trump.
I wouldn't vote for either of those two despicable creatures if my life depended on it.
I've never voted for an amoral leftist in my life and I'm not about to start now.
Maj. Bill, so the lightbulb switches on? I'm surprised it took you so long. But, you are one of the thoughtful and sincere posters here at TBR. The others, are but #NeverTrumpLosersAndReprobates.
@aligncare
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog Oct 4
Trumpkins: "NeverTrumpers are irrelevant and nobody cares about them, also they are single handedly swaying the election in Clinton's favor"
:laugh:
And in addition to @aligncare 's mastery of such bulletproof logic, I am always comforted by his unique gift for edification, consistently bringing out the best in all of us through his pointless and supercilious snark.
I tend to see the worst in Trump myself, and his campaign's strong-man worship of personality and power at the expense of the scapegoat du jour has honestly reminded me also of the rise of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party.Sam, I guess I just wondered from an early age how any people could let a Hitler rise to power. Keep in mind that he promised he'd restore the country and did. He had a huge public works project which put enormous numbers of his people back to work (unemployment was high when he became Chancellor, and he fixed that). Autobahn=wall? Our unemployment/underemployment is way off the official numbers because of the way the Fed Gov counts people who are unemployed. Reality is worse than portrayed for even the best off groups, and a horror show for the worst demographics.
But in fair defense of @Maj. Bill Martin, I think the Major has drawn very credible distinctions between the current situation in the US versus Weimar Germany, and between Hitler's pursuit of power and Trump's pursuit of hedonism. The major has been very clear throughout his posts that he did not support Trump in the primaries and only plans to vote for him now because Hillary is worse. Unlike those who continue to insult my intelligence in their insistence that Trump is some kind of omnicompetent visionary, the major is clear about Trump's many faults, he just doesn't reach the same conclusions about what those faults mean in this country's present context.
I agree with you @Smokin Joe that we might be experiencing the leading edge of a very bad change in American politics and values as the Republican Party now resorts to many of the same tactics that the Democrats have used for years. I hope we can discuss those concerns without making enemies of people who see the current election from a very similar, but not identical, perspective.
Finding myself in agreement with much of what you both say Major and Smokin, I'll put on my best Rodney King hat and ask "Can't we all just get along?"
Always endeavor to eschew obfuscation.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Er...Sorry. It seemed like profound wisdom when Sir Mixalot said it...
You're forgetting one indisputable fact about Donald Trump: he is a patriot who values America above globalization and multiculturalism - something that I used to believe was a republican value, out of place here at TBR.
And in addition to @aligncare 's mastery of such bulletproof logic, I am always comforted by his unique gift for edification, consistently bringing out the best in all of us through his pointless and supercilious snark.
@GrouchoTex
If you Live in Texas, other than the 4 Clowns printed on the Ballot is Write-In. If I'm not Mistaken the only Write-In that will be recognized is Evan. If trump is losing so badly in Texas that he needs your Vote, It's over for him anyway.
Sam, I guess I just wondered from an early age how any people could let a Hitler rise to power. Keep in mind that he promised he'd restore the country and did. He had a huge public works project which put enormous numbers of his people back to work (unemployment was high when he became Chancellor, and he fixed that). Autobahn=wall? Our unemployment/underemployment is way off the official numbers because of the way the Fed Gov counts people who are unemployed. Reality is worse than portrayed for even the best off groups, and a horror show for the worst demographics.
He rebuilt the military, modernizing it, and did so well that treaty obligations were ignored, letting him amass five times the number of troops he was supposed to. He nationalized the police.
The economy improved, and the improvements, economically and technologically, put his nation at the forefront again. The turnaround was so remarkable, that he'd made his country 'great again', that large numbers of people in power in other nations held him in high regard.
He revamped the health care system, provided schooling for the young, and facilities for those with disabilities, all State run. The State took over raising Children, and we are far closer to that in America than most know or want to admit.
Perhaps none of these concepts sounds familiar. These were, indeed, heady times, when a nation so bitterly defeated in war less than 20 years before was hosting the Olympics...had the premier transatlantic service, and was highly regarded in the world. It just didn't stop there.
The ugly side didn't come out until later, but the seeds of that ugliness were present in the Party apparatus and the person at the top.
He vilified a particular group as being the source of many of his country's economic ills, and to popular acclaim, set about solving the 'problem'. (We have two such groups, handy scapegoats, and another in the wings should they misbehave. If all else fails, he could always turn on his supporters, whatever would grant the best advantage. That precedent is established.).
Then the ugliness became more open with the seizure of absolute power, military ambitions were stripped bare and war ensued, along with the systematic removal of people who disagreed with him or who were considered disloyal or who were members of scapegoat groups.
Schoolchildren were indoctrinated in the catechism of the State, and knew of nothing wrong unless they knew someone who got the knock on the door in the middle of the night, had a relative who dissented, or ended up as a high school girl 'manning' an 88 mm antiaircraft gun. They were so thoroughly indoctrinated by the end of the war that mere 'kids' of 13 and 14 would not surrender but fought to the death against allied troops. The cult of personality had been rooted that deep by most of a generation of State control.
It would be folly to ignore the economic distress the US currently is in ($20,000,000,000,000.00 in debt), dependent on foreign sources for much of what we consume, high unemployment, inflation masked by cheap foreign products and downsizing of units of food sold, with the poorest of the poor well fed by the onerous burden of taxes on those who are still productive.
It would be silly to ignore the anger, both at illegal immigrants (and the blame for real Americans not having jobs), and at those 'refugees' being brought in who share an ideology with which we are, fundamentally, at war.
Anger, fear, and easily directed animosity all can be whipped to a crescendo in short notice, especially with the media of today, not just technologically, but psychologically adept at goading emotion to the fore, distorting any message, and limiting disclosure, and without the internet or other media (or controlling them), no other narrative would be heard, except in quiet whispers. Other technical advancements since then would have had the agencies of that State waking in pools of nocturnal emissions over newfound ability to track movement, expenditures, income, communications, and behaviour, as well as to eliminate specific targets. No totalitarian state of the past would have enjoyed such control. It would be easier to strip someone of all but their physical assets than ever, to track their movements and seize even those physical assets, to scan crowds for their faces by remote control.
Both candidates have shown support for gun control in the past, and Trump has only recently shown any resistance to that. Where he stands on the issue is not completely clear.
As always, that is the last step.
Under their other layers, both of the major candidates are control freaks. Both have THE solution to the country's problems, and both have the only one. Both stand to make ridiculous fortunes with the ability to invest heavily in situations where they would control the outcome.
We once said that character counts. Neither of them has the appropriate character for the job. Simple as that.
One is pushing the buttons of the 'underclass' to get them to rise against the merchants and the elites, even while being one of the latter.
Another is harnessing the hatred, anger, and angst of the productive masses (or those who desire to be), and focusing that xenophobia on 'undesirables', making that the signature issue, along with a large public works project and renewed employment, and claiming he will restore our nation's prestige in the world, militarily and otherwise.
It isn't just the seed, it's where it lands and takes root.
I get that no one is happy about our options, least of all me, but I don't, from the viewpoint of an original intent Constitutionalist see much difference. Either is toxic to the Republic.
And in addition to @aligncare 's mastery of such bulletproof logic, I am always comforted by his unique gift for edification, consistently bringing out the best in all of us through his pointless and supercilious snark.
No. Don't want Hillary on the trigger either, so that is a wash. And I think this "you don't want Trump's finger on the button" argument is ridiculous, because it's not Trump's actual finger on the button. He can give the orders, but the military must execute it, and I think you are out of your mind if you think senior military officers would follow an order to execute an nuclear strike without an extraordinarily good reason.It's called the War Powers Act. Failure to carry out a lawful order in time of war? At best, career over. At worst, shot for treason. Because of the nature of strategic response times, Congress will be too busy hauling ass for the nearest hardened hidey-hole to bother to vote on anything, even if they could have mustered a quorum.
There is no question that Trump shoots off his mouth and says some incredibly stupid things.Agreed.
On the other hand, there is no way you can acquire the fortune and success he has had if you truly are that erratic when it actually gets to sitting down and doing real business as opposed to shooting off your mouth.First, what is he worth and how much of that is tied up as equity in leveraged properties subject to variations in valuation? We really don't know how successful he has been. There is also a question of how much of that success comes from screwing over contractors and investors. Bernie Madoff amassed a fortune, too. It is one thing when you focus on the 'win' against people who have no means to fight. In an era of asymmetrical warfare, though, screwing over a head of state might cost the American People dearly. Causing them to lose face by calling their wife a "fat hog" or "ugly" or some such might not be good policy either. Just think of the cost in lives and dollars exacted by 17 guys with some plane tickets and box cutters, and you might get the picture.
Oh, going after screennames now! Wow, well, you kind of surprised me with that one, Joe. Thought you were actually one of the more reasonable folks here even though we disagreed. I'd make some comment about you must therefore be the real Joe Frazier if you place such an emphasis on the truthfulness behind screennames, but you know...it's not really worth it anymore. That's as clear a sign as I'm going to get that you're not really interested in substance.That really was just in fun. As for a boxer, no, the nickname comes from my days as a volunteer firefighter, long ago and far away.
And in addition to @aligncare 's mastery of such bulletproof logic, I am always comforted by his unique gift for edification, consistently bringing out the best in all of us through his pointless and supercilious snark.
You're forgetting one indisputable fact about Donald Trump: he is a patriot who values America above globalization and multiculturalism - something that I used to believe was a republican value, out of place here at TBR.http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/25/before-the-brexit-donald-trump-was-a-transnationalist-who-wanted-to-leave-borders-behind/ (http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/25/before-the-brexit-donald-trump-was-a-transnationalist-who-wanted-to-leave-borders-behind/)
Thanks! As always I'm here to help enlighten NeverTrump rabble, who as everyone knows, are so pitifully misinformed that they stupidly risk two generations of liberal progressive rule, secured by the liberal bench appointed by PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON. Thank you third-party loones like Castle, Johnson and the other pipsqueak, whose name escapes me...and, 99 percent of the voting public.
"Thanks AC", I knew I could count on you. No wonder you're such a strong pro-Trump man, you're just as easily baited as he.
Thanks! As always I'm here to help enlighten NeverTrump rabble, who as everyone knows, are so pitifully misinformed that they stupidly risk two generations of liberal progressive rule, secured by the liberal bench appointed by PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON. Thank you third-party loones like Castle, Johnson and the other pipsqueak, whose name escapes me...and, 99 percent of the voting public.
"Thanks AC", I knew I could count on you. No wonder you're such a strong pro-Trump man, you're just as easily baited as he.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/25/before-the-brexit-donald-trump-was-a-transnationalist-who-wanted-to-leave-borders-behind/ (http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/25/before-the-brexit-donald-trump-was-a-transnationalist-who-wanted-to-leave-borders-behind/)
Uh Huh.
Careful @HoustonSam, you're liable to start some 3:00 a.m. twitter rant, 5 days from now, about some beauty pageant contestant.
They may tell us to watch porn.
Dang, sometimes his supporters make this so easy!
Some of the pro-Trump crowd seem to believe in a "conservation of conceptual error" principle. If the total amount of conceptual error in the universe is constant, and they can get more people to join them in their conceptual error, then each of them bears proportionally less accountability for its consequences.
I can't figure any other rationale for their approach, because "The Trump Train" has been a trainwreck of a candidacy so far, yet they still insist that we should board the train, as if by our doing so the trainwreck will suddenly be repaired.
I think it *could* happen here; we aren't genetically distinct from the Germans of the inter-war period. Like you, I used to wonder *how* that could have happened, but then I saw the Democrat party fall into lock-step behind Clinton regardless of what he had done, and I saw the hero-worship afforded to Obama regardless of his clear lack of qualification, and I see the same now offered to Trump in spite of the many qualities, statements, and actions which should disqualify him. And all three instances are characterized by appeal to fear and envy, and by scapegoating others and creating enemies. American politics are clearly breaking down, or perhaps *have broken down*, into recrimination rather than competing ideas about governance, and I think it does sow the seeds for the kind of future you are describing.
Meh. Misery loves company. Work was a bust so I came home. Looking this situation over leaves me no other option. I'm going fishing. seeyaluvyabye
There were those who tried to warn the populace the same things we are attempting to warn them about now. Google the Munich Post.
Thanks! As always I'm here to help enlighten NeverTrump rabble, who as everyone knows, are so pitifully misinformed....
I'm with you on the parallels @Smokin Joe , and I think it *could* happen here; we aren't genetically distinct from the Germans of the inter-war period. Like you, I used to wonder *how* that could have happened, but then I saw the Democrat party fall into lock-step behind Clinton regardless of what he had done, and I saw the hero-worship afforded to Obama regardless of his clear lack of qualification, and I see the same now offered to Trump in spite of the many qualities, statements, and actions which should disqualify him. And all three instances are characterized by appeal to fear and envy, and by scapegoating others and creating enemies. American politics are clearly breaking down, or perhaps *have broken down*, into recrimination rather than competing ideas about governance, and I think it does sow the seeds for the kind of future you are describing.On the right, I see that the anger has been there. No one wants to be a victim on the right, no one wants to blame others, but that is a seductive stance.
But I think the major sees those same things also, he just sees that they are far more developed on the left, and that not all of the necessary parallels are in place for an American repeat of that history. Now if, as the major points out, it has happened on the American left it can surely happen on the American right (or whichever direction we ascribe to Trump's supporters) as well, and I agree with you that we can at least see the leading edge of that tendency in some aspects of Trump's campaign. You're also right that it's the kind of thing we should resist and defeat before it takes root, not after. But if it hasn't yet taken root, then clearly it's not yet the full grown plant, and I think that is the major's key point.
I just hope that thinkers here on this site who have displayed a lot of insight and critical thought, and I put you and the major in that category, won't fall out with each other when it doesn't seem necessary. However this election turns out we'll need fellows like both of you helping us find a way forward.
That argument is a double-edged sword, because it begs the question of exactly who are the Nazis in this scenario. Hillary and the left, or Trump?
If it is actually Hillary and the left that present the greater, more immediate threat to liberty, then those of us who are arguing that defeating her must be the primary goal are actually the ones sounding the alarm, and you guys are the ones failing to listen.
But if that is the case, then we're screwed no matter who we elect, and whether we vote for Hillary, Trump, or even someone else won't make a damn bit of difference anyway. Either Hillary or Trump wins, and liberty dies with them.
So if that's the case...it doesn't matter who we vote for, and you shouldn't care either way.
I haven't seen a cogent argument presented as to why Hillary will not be in a better, stronger position than Trump to stack the deck/limit liberty moving forward.
I just haven't seen an argument for how anyone other than a progressive can win in 2020 and beyond if they have 12 years of Obama and Hillary on which to build. I don't think anyone has even attempted to seriously make that case. If someone wants to, fine. Or maybe I've missed it.
But unless someone can make that case, then I don't see the downside to voting for Trump other than as virtue signaling.
That argument is a double-edged sword, because it begs the question of exactly who are the Nazis in this scenario. Hillary and the left, or Trump?Yep, yep, and for the most part, yep. Voting for a 'third' party will help get that party on ballots for next time. It is a step in the right direction.
If it is actually Hillary and the left that present the greater, more immediate threat to liberty, then those of us who are arguing that defeating her must be the primary goal are actually the ones sounding the alarm, and you guys are the ones failing to listen.
I suspect your answer will be "both of them". But if that is the case, then we're screwed no matter who we elect, and whether we vote for Hillary, Trump, or even someone else won't make a damn bit of difference anyway.
Either Hillary or Trump wins, and liberty dies with them.likely outcome, but Liberty won't be dead, just on ECMO.
So if that's the case...it doesn't matter who we vote for, and you shouldn't care either way.But it does matter. Voting for that someone else, based on party platform and principle (not person, nor the anticipation of a win) will voice a desired direction, will help that party gain ballot access in the future. If Liberty is to be revived, that will have to happen elsewhere (aside from the GOP or the Democrats) or one of those parties is going to have to have a serious change in direction. With the tenuous assumption that there will be a future, we have to build for it. Otherwise, it has no chance of happening.
Ultimately, that's one of the biggest problems I have with that whole line of thinking. I haven't seen a cogent argument presented as to why Hillary will not be in a better, stronger position than Trump to stack the deck/limit liberty moving forward.
I just haven't seen an argument for how anyone other than a progressive can win in 2020 and beyond if they have 12 years of Obama and Hillary on which to build. I don't think anyone has even attempted to seriously make that case. If someone wants to, fine. Or maybe I've missed it.Short of an awakening in the electorate and mass defections from one or both parties, it is unlikely, especially with the GOP heading in the wrong direction.
But unless someone can make that case, then I don't see the downside to voting for Trump other than as virtue signaling.Then that will have to be sufficient. Voting for Trump will only encourage the GOP to continue as it is. There will be no reason for the GOP to reverse its course if no one signals that they have had enough, and all will continue on the same course if no one does. It may keep moving Left anyway if that truly is the agenda. If that is the case, only killing the Party off and building a new one will provide any relief. One thing is certain, voting for the same people who have fought against our Liberty will not restore it unless they genuinely fear losing their jobs.
Show me a hundred thousand brownshirts massing, threatening violence, and engaging in organized disruptions of other political parties.
Okay, ten thousand.
A thousand?
Uh, fifty?
A dozen?
I mean, I can go online and watch old videos of massive Nazi Party rallies. Surely, in this age of cell phone videos and the internet, I should be able to see these violence-fueled Trump supporters massing in paramilitary units and intimidating peaceful citizens. Heck, I can see violent rallies and rioting by BLM members, who presumably far fewer in numbers than the massive number of proto-fascist Trump supporters who are going to send the rest of us to the ovens.
So where are they? Where is the paramilitary organization? The pattern of violent disruption of opposition political rallies (again, we can see that from the left....) Where is the evidence that what you're talking about is anything more than blowing wildly out of proportion the braggadocious stupidity of a few keyboard commandos?
Maybe the reason I'm not seeing it is because this melodramatic hand-wringing is without any rational basis in fact.
@aligncare -- winning friends and influencing people since the Iowa Caucuses....
If there is one thing this board has made clear, it is that the statements and conduct of supporters of a candidate can affect how others perceive that candidate. In particular, the statements of some Trump supporters are often cited as the reason some people are worried about what his election would mean.
Why would you want to fuel that? I honestly find that as puzzling as anything some of the NeverTrump people say.
Have you thought to check the mirror? Just because they aren't wearing their colors don't mean they aren't in the gang. And people wonder why so many high intelligent and educated Jews didn't get out in time.
They couldn't believe their good time had come to an end. They got on the trains and trucks still thinking someone else cared enough to stop the madness. Well, someone did. It took the Allies a bit to get them free.
But, I'm a full throated Trump supporter here. I was attacked and insulted from the minute I gave my opinion. My conservative credentials, intelligence, morality, sanity was attacked and impugned by these NeverTrump–Ted Cruz cultists and diehards.
You hope to reconcile this rift? I'm not so optimistic.
There was no "good time." Things sucked for years before the cattle cars were lined up. The thumbscrews had been tightened for years on the Jews in Germany.
Projection. You've flung more insults, slander and ridicule than a stick can be shaken at.
Oh, and if your widdle feewings is hurt, this is for your self-deluded suffering:
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-07/10/7/enhanced/webdr10/enhanced-30731-1436527800-1.jpg)
You made us the enemy from the very beginning. We're now simply living up to your charge because you made it pointless to argue otherwise.
29 pages.
Say what you will, there's one thing the ne'ertrumper contingent ne'r runs out of:
BREATH!
Nor does the Trump-is-Savior contingent, since both sides are well represented here, and there are only about 8 of you........
Lots of wind on both sides, it seems........ right?? ^-^
You're forgetting one indisputable fact about Donald Trump: he is a patriot who values America above globalization and multiculturalismYou'll never convince the #nevertrump bumpkins of that @aligncare, because it intrudes on their daydream about this election and its outcome.
And minty fresh.
Hey! I just got my Swear Word Coloring Book! Now I can make colorful language even more colorful!
...BOTH Trump and Hildabeast have inarguably demonstrated they are BOTH Statists with no regard for the Constitution. ...
... I think Trump and his Nationalist Populists are the greater danger to my liberty. No one from Hildabeast's camp has threatened people en masse simply for opining that they are not voting for her. The behavior of the AlwaysTrump nuts both here and abroad have demonstrated that they have no more love of liberty than Hildabeast's Commie hordes do, and are EAGER to mete out punishment on those they have already blamed should Trump *lose*...
...Everyone KNOWS what Hillary is. We know where she stands in our contempt for us. The people have been deceived into thinking Trump is on their side.
He's not. He is (as he always is) on his OWN side....
...A vast majority WANT what Obama and Hillary are promising. You're still infected with Normacly bias - that somehow elections and numbers and campaigns decide who rules.
But, I'm a full throated Trump supporter here. I was attacked and insulted from the minute I gave my opinion. My conservative credentials, intelligence, morality, sanity was attacked and impugned by these NeverTrump–Ted Cruz cultists and diehards.
You hope to reconcile this rift? I'm not so optimistic. You have this idea that you can "gently" nurture these poor emotionally wounded souls back to seeing the big picture? Me, I am not so inclined. I plan to continue giving as bad as I got from the free republic refuse, that overnight flooded this neighborhood, flinging their dirt at anything or anyone Trump.
To you, I say peace, Major – and good luck. You'll need it.
I was thinking of getting one! Do you like it so far? As for colored pencils; what brand do you prefer??
Projection. You've flung more insults, slander and ridicule than a stick can be shaken at.
Oh, and if your widdle feewings is hurt, this is for your self-deluded suffering:
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-07/10/7/enhanced/webdr10/enhanced-30731-1436527800-1.jpg)
You made us the enemy from the very beginning. We're now simply living up to your charge because you made it pointless to argue otherwise.
The relationship between Trump and Cruz pretty much reflects the relationship between their supporters - everything was great until Cruz beat Trump in Iowa. Then Cruz became evil incarnate and his supporters said 'amen'.
They set the tone in this contest.
The relationship between Trump and Cruz pretty much reflects the relationship between their supporters - everything was great until Cruz beat Trump in Iowa. Then Cruz became evil incarnate and his supporters said 'amen'.I think Trump thought he had Iowa in the bag after he came out (sucking up to Gov. Branstad and his ethanol lobbyist son) all fired up for ethanol mandates. Branstad had said Cruz (who supported eliminating the mandate) 'had to be defeated, whatever it takes.'
They set the tone in this contest.
I think Trump thought he had Iowa in the bag after he came out (sucking up to Gov. Branstad and his ethanol lobbyist son) all fired up for ethanol mandates. Branstad had said Cruz (who supported eliminating the mandate) 'had to be defeated, whatever it takes.'
Cruz took his case to the farmers for letting the market decide and it worked, he won support.
Trump started the smear campaign the same night.
I think Trump thought he had Iowa in the bag after he came out (sucking up to Gov. Branstad and his ethanol lobbyist son) all fired up for ethanol mandates. Branstad had said Cruz (who supported eliminating the mandate) 'had to be defeated, whatever it takes.'
Cruz took his case to the farmers for letting the market decide and it worked, he won support.
Trump started the smear campaign the same night.
Man, I wish I had the verbal voluble veracity of you guys. I can't come up with lofty literary luminesences like smear campaign. Three letters is all I could think of.
I've been dealing with people like you for nearly 45 years.
But, I'm a full throated Trump supporter here. I was attacked and insulted from the minute I gave my opinion. My conservative credentials, intelligence, morality, sanity was attacked and impugned by these NeverTrump–Ted Cruz cultists and diehards.
That is not entirely true A/C and you know it. You've been on this board longer than I, but I've been here awhile and long before the refugees came over from the other site. There was a time when I actually was in favor of Trump and gave him the benefit of the doubt. I don't remember anyone in this forum attacking anyone for their opinion of Trump; at the time we in here pretty much balked at anyone dumping on anyone else and for the most part we may have disagreed but never attacked. We may have attacked other candidates but I don't recall attacking each other. As I recall, you left for quite some time and came back around the same time that many refugees from another forum joined in. With no disrespect intended, your attitude changed towards others with obvious insults when you became a full-blown Trump supporter.
As I recall the first attacks came upon those who were Cruz supporters and those attacks were more relentless in number and content than anything that was dished out towards Trump supporters around the time when Trump started going ballistic on Cruz about the birther issue and then cheating, the delegate issue and on and on and really the Cruz bashing/accusations from Trump supporters has never stopped.
I refuse to vote for someone whom I feel will continue us down the destructive path that we are on.
#NeverTrump
You hope to reconcile this rift? I'm not so optimistic. You have this idea that you can "gently" nurture these poor emotionally wounded souls back to seeing the big picture? Me, I am not so inclined. I plan to continue giving as bad as I got from the free republic refuse, that overnight flooded this neighborhood, flinging their dirt at anything or anyone Trump.
I love my swear word coloring book. And I can name that tone in three letters:
ASS
That's right people. ... red ass...
I don't have a comment, I just wanted to make sure nobody missed what @aligncare thinks about a large number of the Members of TBR. I had missed it until somebody else noticed, I'm so used to the troll behavior being exhibited.
I don't have a comment, I just wanted to make sure nobody missed what @aligncare thinks about a large number of the Members of TBR. I had missed it until somebody else noticed, I'm so used to the troll behavior being exhibited.
I don't have a comment, I just wanted to make sure nobody missed what @aligncare thinks about a large number of the Members of TBR. I had missed it until somebody else noticed, I'm so used to the troll behavior being exhibited.
And I wonder why he doesn't think reconciliation is possible...... **nononono*
He hates our guts. He wouldn't reconcile with those of us he considers to be GARBAGE if his very life depended on it.
I love my swear word coloring book. And I can name that tone in three letters:Red ass. Red ass.
ASS
That's right people. ... red ass...
Impressive scarecrow...
LOL. I like how you worded that.
You know, sometimes a person gets so angry that he just makes a fool of himself. No one could discredit him better than his own typing fingers. So whatever. Like-mined people will cheer but everyone else will see it for what it is.
Message for all haters of guts: Trolling is even worse than personal insults, and will be dealt with harshly. Now stay on subject! This thread is the proper place to have this particular war, so it's bound to get a bit ugly, but keep it professional and above board.
Thanks,
M1
I dunno...IMO, trolling is not near as damaging to my psyche as being called "Free Republic Refuse"...
0005
j/k...carry on
@Night Hides Not
@Norm Lenhart
Don't give it another thought. It is not true and not worth our time. The point of posts like that is to wound you and to make you angry. Never give him that satisfaction. Just let it stand as a witness against himself.
I don't have a comment, I just wanted to make sure nobody missed what @aligncare thinks about a large number of the Members of TBR. I had missed it until somebody else noticed, I'm so used to the troll behavior being exhibited.
Pales to the repeated accusations of being Hillary supporters.
I've PM'ed this a couple of times to people either skating on the edge or wondering why their report to us did not warrant action, so I'm going to make this a public post.
Saying someone's actions have the effect of supporting Hillary Clinton (the topic dejure. Next year it will be someone else) is acceptable, though it may sound rude. It's because it's the actions of the poster being criticized. But, saying that because someone's actions have that effect they are therefore supporters of Hillary Clinton is NOT acceptable, because it's criticizing the person, not the actions.
Yes, it's a fine line, often honored in the breach, and imprecise to boot, but we needed a rule that can be evenly, therefore fairly applied.
Thanks,
M1
I don't have a comment, I just wanted to make sure nobody missed what @aligncare thinks about a large number of the Members of TBR. I had missed it until somebody else noticed, I'm so used to the troll behavior being exhibited.The part that cracks me up about that post was the "not so optimistic" comment. With comments like calling us "free republic refuse" I'd say it is more like no effing way.
And I wonder why he doesn't think reconciliation is possible...... **nononono*Well, if that is his opinion, that tells me what his opinion is worth. :shrug:
He hates our guts. He wouldn't reconcile with those of us he considers to be GARBAGE if his very life depended on it.
Well, if that is his opinion, that tells me what his opinion is worth. :shrug:
The rest of us should just go ahead and have a good time anyway! :beer:
As long as that goes both ways, I'm 100% good with it. Primarily because they can't support that position factually and thus will be buried in the rebuttals.
I think that means we can state the truth that those who vote for liberals, regardless of what party they insist they belong to, are supporting liberals.
But it does matter. Voting for that someone else, based on party platform and principle (not person, nor the anticipation of a win) will voice a desired direction, will help that party gain ballot access in the future.
I made that comment to @INVAR, and his position seems to be somewhat different from yours. He argues that we already have gone over the edge. If that is true, then a nascent, startup conservative third party will have zero chance of ever becoming anything in that environment. He essentially envisions a total collapse, and whatever conventional political parties exist now won't even be around when/if we merge from the other side.
You -- I assume -- envision a post Hillary 2020 or 2024 as something that still would be sufficiently democratic to permit a staunch conservative party to exist and thrive. While I personally don't agree with that, it at least presents a practical rationale for voting third party right now.
Have you thought to check the mirror? Just because they aren't wearing their colors don't mean they aren't in the gang. And people wonder why so many high intelligent and educated Jews didn't get out in time.
I admit to being less patient than you.....
Is there sufficient time after November? That's a problem.
That's the way I read the Mod's post. Actually calling them liberals crosses that line. I don't see much difference, myself, but that's where they say the line is.
As long as that goes both ways, I'm 100% good with it. Primarily because they can't support that position factually and thus will be buried in the rebuttals.
I made that comment to @INVAR, and his position seems to be somewhat different from yours. He argues that we already have gone over the edge. If that is true, then a nascent, startup conservative third party will have zero chance of ever becoming anything in that environment. He essentially envisions a total collapse, and whatever conventional political parties exist now won't even be around when/if we merge from the other side.
You -- I assume -- envision a post Hillary 2020 or 2024 as something that still would be sufficiently democratic to permit a staunch conservative party to exist and thrive. While I personally don't agree with that, it at least presents a practical rationale for voting third party right now.
I don't think we are over the edge yet. We still have the power to vote. My objection is I view that the advent of technology has opened the door to corruption of the system. I would insist on voter ID and paper ballots. There is nothing wrong with our government, i.e., a Constitutional Republic.
It is the people running it that are the problem. I, personally, will not turn on what I believe by voting for Trump. Given that either he or hillary will be POTUS I do have the idea that he would best serve the interests of the U.S. better than she. So my main focus is voting down ticket. And holding my reps feet to the fire in the hope they will hold his feet to the fire.
Then the line is a farce. Because a person that votes/empowers a liberal is not anything other than a liberal. Words mean things whether a Mod, a Forum or anything else wants to say otherwise.
There is a massive difference between calling a liberal a liberal and calling someone refusing to vote for Trump a Hillary supporter. A man that fishes is a fisherman. A man that rapes is a rapist and a man that backs a person that wants Planned Parenthood funded, wants Obamacare 'fixed', wants Trannies to invade a ladies room, wants touchback Amnesty and all the rest, is a liberal. So if we can't speak the truth, which that very much is and I defy ANYONE to prove with a straight face that it isn't, there is little point in playing pretend. We may as well not speak at all and hand an open field to the liberals.
I can just see the people of the founders day sitting around saying "You know George, we shouldn't call Loyalists "Loyalists" just because they back the Crown. Someone might get offended!"
THe thread that won't die...
Then again....why even bother with any rebuttals? When the accusation is so lame and absurd (and it is)....it deserves and requires no response. You don't argue with an insane person or with a child having a tantrum, do you? :laugh:
Let me make sure I have this straight: It's OK to troll people and call them names if you are on the "right side?"No. It's perfectly fine to speak the truth. Is there truth in calling a conservative a Hillary Supporter? No.
I don't think we are over the edge yet. We still have the power to vote. My objection is I view that the advent of technology has opened the door to corruption of the system. I would insist on voter ID and paper ballots. There is nothing wrong with our government, i.e., a Constitutional Republic. It is the people running it that are the problem. I, personally, will not turn on what I believe by voting for Trump. Given that either he or hillary will be POTUS I do have the idea that he would best serve the interests of the U.S. better than she. So my main focus is voting down ticket. And holding my reps feet to the fire in the hope they will hold his feet to the fire.
I agree with all that. The problem is that the Democrats/left don't. And if Hillary gets in there, and it's a Hillary-appointed Justice Department addressing voter issues, and a Hillary-dominated bureaucracy handling immigration....things will go in exactly the opposite direction from what you and I want. Not only will the Justice Department deliberately refrain from going after voter fraud, they'll prosecute/oppose in the (leftist-dominated) courts all reasonable efforts by states to ensure the integrity of the vote. We've already seen that. When a state attempts to introduce measures to limit fraud, DOJ files suits, and generally wins.
How does all that not get worse if she wins?
I understand your choice. I'd suggest, though, that our representatives are going to be powerless to do anything about that if both the courts and bureaucracy are on her side. Voting "rights" have largely been taken over by the courts, and by the administrative/regulatory types in the executive branch.
I think we are. We're in that slo-mo Coyote falling off the edge of the cliff and right before he starts windmilling trying to get back onto the cliff. The momentum is against us.
We were almost there by 2008, and 0 and his handlers have led us off the cliff.
With a hillary win it will go a lot faster towards applying the 2nd. There will be that moment to decide if you die on your knees or die on your feet. #Free Lives Matter
If the 2nd is anyones hope, they may as well pack it in now. A nation filled with 'patriots' that cant stand anonymously in a voting booth and cast a vote for anyone but a liberal isn't going to do anything but cower in a corner when boots hit the ground.
If the 2nd is anyones hope, they may as well pack it in now.
I ain't taking it in the ass.
That's why we have the Ted Cruz's of the world. heh heh heh
We are in the place we are because people refused to call a spade a spade and the liberals just kept pushing their lies to everyone. There is no functional difference between not calling a liberal a liberal because other liberals will throw themselves on the floor in a screaming fit here and conservatives not being allowed to speak in venues across the country because liberals might throw themselves on the floor in a screaming fit. Is there? And That hasn't seemed to work out well for America.
Besides, isn't shutting down dissent just what Jim Robinson did because the liberals there were OFFENDED when being called what they were? THEY didn't want to face the truth of their actions either.
Funny. It's the same people bitching in both places. So I guess conservatism loses ANOTHER forum to placate liberalism.
I think we are. We're in that slo-mo Coyote falling off the edge of the cliff and right before he starts windmilling trying to get back onto the cliff. The momentum is against us.
We were almost there by 2008, and 0 and his handlers have led us off the cliff.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ao8Cx73oPgQCc/giphy.gif)
I see your point and it is valid nationally. Come to think of it, if Bush had only fought back against all of the lib leftist lies ....things might have turned out very differently. He just didn't have it (Reaganesque) in him to go to the American public and make his case against the 24/7 onslaught of lies and propaganda.
Here, on the Briefing Room forum, it is different. It's us vs. them via opinions.....and in my humble opinion.....they are bordering on insanity with their constant barrage of insults and emotional displays of hatred against anyone they disagree with. But here, on this forum, both sides of that disagreement are being allowed to continue....unlike at TOS.
Yes, Jim shut down all dissent by zotting anyone he disagreed with (or that disagreed with him). But that is NOT happening here, so ..... I posit that we ....instead of bothering to rebut the insanity....sit back, munch our popcorn, swig our Corona and laugh and point (a lot) at the spoiled brats that can't handle the fact that they are not getting their way HERE. JS....
I made that comment to @INVAR, and his position seems to be somewhat different from yours. He argues that we already have gone over the edge. If that is true, then a nascent, startup conservative third party will have zero chance of ever becoming anything in that environment. He essentially envisions a total collapse, and whatever conventional political parties exist now won't even be around when/if we merge from the other side.@ Maj. Bill Martin
You -- I assume -- envision a post Hillary 2020 or 2024 as something that still would be sufficiently democratic to permit a staunch conservative party to exist and thrive. While I personally don't agree with that, it at least presents a practical rationale for voting third party right now.
No. It's perfectly fine to speak the truth. Is there truth in calling a conservative a Hillary Supporter? No.
Is there truth in calling someone empowering liberalism and liberals a liberal? Yes.
So your problem doesn't seem to be with me. Let me see if "I" have this right...Your problem is with the truth.
I made that comment to @INVAR, and his position seems to be somewhat different from yours. He argues that we already have gone over the edge.
If that is true, then a nascent, startup conservative third party will have zero chance of ever becoming anything in that environment. He essentially envisions a total collapse, and whatever conventional political parties exist now won't even be around when/if we merge from the other side.
If that is the case, better have some dirt to plant in, some food in the pantry, a way to cook, and some tangible assets you can trade, all off the books, (and some 'real money') .
If a truth is a truth, it's valid everywhere.
Does it make a difference if someone is zotted or just forbidden to speak the truth? Really? Does it? The truth is still off limits on that forum. Well, 'certain' truths'. Truths that cause headaches for management/moderation HERE because they (management here) are then stuck having to listen to screaming liberals. About 10 or so by my count.
I don't blame them for whishig it all away. But it never goes away does it. No matter how ofte they were told to stop lying about hilary supporter BS, they waited a day and started up again. Thats liberal behavior as well.
And you want more of that? Because thats what has happened so far. They keep it up regardless of what owner or mod tells them, repeatedly to knock it off. Then when they don't and WE bitch, threads either get locked, or everyone is told to 'calm down'.
Truth is truth. If someone wants the truth put off limits, thats fine. They should just say it and be done with it. There are other forums.
@ Maj. Bill Martin
I am counting on the GOP, if they want to have any power when the dust settles, either fighting against Hillary and leaving enough of a remnant of the Republic for elections, or just moving their collective tent over into the Democrat Camp.
If the latter, that will vacate the Constitutionalist (and former "Conservative", although the term will be completely meaningless) and Religious Right Landscape, a void which a Third Party could fill.
Fair enough. But there haven't been any successful third party movements since the advent of the primary system. That is true even though the opportunity for a third party has been presented during periods when both parties have re-invented major portions of their platforms during the last 100 years, and left a "gap".
What percentage of the electorate do you think is willing to abandon the GOP and Democrat parties, and support a more hardline conservative party?
Whatever you say, Norm. Drop us a link when you get your own forum and can enforce that, OK?
@Smokin Joe888high58888 (me neither)
That is my childhood. I never growed up. Dammit.
Then the line is a farce. Because a person that votes/empowers a liberal is not anything other than a liberal.
I tend to have a more "what the hell" attitude about forum drama these days. Wasn't always that way. I used to take things quite seriously. Looking back, I realize how silly I was. But that was then, this is now.
If you've ever been a moderator you would give them more credit here than what they're getting. It's a no-win, no glory, thankless job they've volunteered to undertake. They're doing a splendid job thus far, considering the passions that are always displayed in any election year. And yeah, there are other forums out there. But I challenge you to find one that is better or where you will get better treatment (ie being allowed to voice YOUR opinions on Trump), as an anti-Trump poster, anywhere.
What is your definition of a "liberal"?
Yes, Jim shut down all dissent by zotting anyone he disagreed with (or that disagreed with him). But that is NOT happening here, so ..... I posit that we ....instead of bothering to rebut the insanity....sit back, munch our popcorn, swig our Corona and laugh and point (a lot) at the spoiled brats that can't handle the fact that they are not getting their way HERE. JS....
Lol......here's the GOP & Co. now supporting Trump.....
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/3977153/wile-e-coyote-batman-o.gif)
That is exactly what the nation did with the liberal spoiled brats back in the 60's and 70's.
Look around today - this is what you get when you ignore spoiled brats with an attitude.
.....
Sometimes, putting an end to the tantrum is the correct course of action. I've never seen a kid who is allowed to throw a fit in the toy aisle of Walmart, learn to behave themselves.
That is exactly what the nation did with the liberal spoiled brats back in the 60's and 70's.
Look around today - this is what you get when you ignore spoiled brats with an attitude.
I've watched formerly Conservative Christian forums adopt that exact policy of just sitting back and letting the 'children' throw their tantrums while we laugh at them.
The results… not pretty.
Those forums are now largely hedonistic/Leftist cesspools, having run off everyone whom made those places what they were. The denizens now are groupthink trolls that plot from their new safespace and work to do the same to other boards and often plot attacks on one forum that they visit like a pack of wolves on whatever target they have selected at another board.
Sometimes, putting an end to the tantrum is the correct course of action. I've never seen a kid who is allowed to throw a fit in the toy aisle of Walmart, learn to behave themselves.
I won't be one to sit around, swigging my Shiner (or Spatlese) while uninformed miscreants spout untruths, historically inaccurate statements, illogical arguments, or violations of Godwin's Law. Such individuals deserve a prompt reaction, if only to keep this site from descending into the same Echo Chamber that has become TOS.
And that goes double for the most hardened Trump supporters! :tongue2: ****slapping :silly:
That is exactly what the nation did with the liberal spoiled brats back in the 60's and 70's.
Look around today - this is what you get when you ignore spoiled brats with an attitude.
I've watched formerly Conservative Christian forums adopt that exact policy of just sitting back and letting the 'children' throw their tantrums while we laugh at them.
The results… not pretty.
Those forums are now largely hedonistic/Leftist cesspools, having run off everyone whom made those places what they were. The denizens now are groupthink trolls that plot from their new safespace and work to do the same to other boards and often plot attacks on one forum that they visit like a pack of wolves on whatever target they have selected at another board.
Sometimes, putting an end to the tantrum is the correct course of action. I've never seen a kid who is allowed to throw a fit in the toy aisle of Walmart, learn to behave themselves.
That's because parents, who have sole control over that kid, refuse to use the control they have over their bratty kids. When I was five, and started acting up in public (while shopping), my mother knew how to deal with me. She threatened to pull my pants down IN PUBLIC and spank me in front of God and everybody. Worked every time. Of course....now and today.... the mere threat of physical punishment could get her a visit from Child Services. Hence, the destruction from creeping Liberalism.
What's the solution? Perhaps there is none. I remember a leftie troll that we righties used to ridicule...that used to say "In the end, Liberalism always wins". I'm starting to see that he was correct after all.
Solution is simple. Dont be silent. Don't let them spread the lies they do. Stand up and say the word they hate most. "No".
Ok. Point made and taken. But.....here on this forum, we are guests. Let's not make this place a bloody battleground and punish our hosts for the situation we find ourselves in nationally. Just sayin....
Ok. Point made and taken. But.....here on this forum, we are guests. Let's not make this place a bloody battleground and punish our hosts for the situation we find ourselves in nationally. Just sayin....@Norm Lenhart
Not getting into this with you again. All you did last time was talk in circles and make excuses.
As long as that goes both ways, I'm 100% good with it. Primarily because they can't support that position factually and thus will be buried in the rebuttals.
That's because parents, who have sole control over that kid, refuse to use the control they have over their bratty kids. When I was five, and started acting up in public (while shopping), my mother knew how to deal with me. She threatened to pull my pants down IN PUBLIC and spank me in front of God and everybody. Worked every time. Of course....now and today.... the mere threat of physical punishment could get her a visit from Child Services. Hence, the destruction from creeping Liberalism.
What's the solution? Perhaps there is none. I remember a leftie troll that we righties used to ridicule...that used to say "In the end, Liberalism always wins". I'm starting to see that he was correct after all.
Ok. Point made and taken. But.....here on this forum, we are guests. Let's not make this place a bloody battleground and punish our hosts for the situation we find ourselves in nationally. Just sayin....
Weren't you the guy who claimed that you'd "bury in rebuttals" anyone who argued with you on this...?
I can't logically prove that Trump is the better choice, because there are nominate more conservative Justices than Hillary. But you can't prove logically that he won't, which makes your absolutism nothing more than ipse dixit -- that your predictions and interpretations of facts must be true because you say they are.
So if you don't want to engage further on that, fine. But others aren't compelled to remain silent when you make your absolutist assertions.
Heres what one liberal had to say today
"This is a progressive neocon web site, what does one expect?
They call me everything from a nazi to a jew hater to a liberal to a pervert to an abomination.
I say it is they who are the abomination rising up as smoke into the nostrils of god, and thank god, i am not the judge."
And we can't call them what they are? We "abomination(s) rising up as smoke into the nostrils of god"?
What were you saying about battlefields?
I don't want to engage with you at all because anyone reading your post history can see you duck and dodge every fact I handed you. There's no point in doing it again.
Next time that troll says that, merely respond, "in what universe? It didn't work for 1930s Germany, the Soviet Union, nor for Jim Crow in the South. And it sure as hell didn't work for Maximilian Robespierre during the French Revolution."
That should get the conversation started...lol.
Liberalism, like socialism, wins until you run out of other people's money.
You didn't hand me a single fact. You offered opinions masquerading as facts, and absolutist predictions as to what would happen in the future. I called you on it, and that was it.
The great divide in this election among conservatives comes in trying to predict what Trump would do if elected. The vast majority of us recognize that as an unknown, and so we debate it. But you have reduced that unknown to a stark choice where your prediction of his future actions is inarguable, and therefore, anyone who votes for him to try to keep Hillary out of office must be a liberal because they must desire the results you are convinced will result from his election. To say that argument is full of logical holes would be to give it too much credit -- there really isn't any logic to it at all.
I know full well how the left operates. I've been sparring with them on the internet for almost two decades now. Calling us "neocons" is the left's favorite slur.
Point is..... fight them IRL. Fight them locally. Fight them nationally. Never stop fighting them. But we are guests here. We don't make or enforce the rules here. Leave it up to Myst and her mods to do that. Have some respect for the battle that THEY are having to undertake. It can't be easy. This is the worst year ever re: political emotional outbursts. And it will only get worse over the next month.
What is your definition of a "liberal"?
Complete crap. your post history is what it is.
Doesn't matter. Norm just wants to call people names, and is trying to find away around TBR's rules against calling people names.
@Norm Lenhart @Maj. Bill Martin
This makes me sad. Both of your are exceptional posters, witty, obviously well read, well informed and well-intentioned, and I've watched you go at it hammer and tongs for days now, and I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I'm not even sure you disagree with each other on anything significant. I don't see how this is a positive exchange on any level.
@Norm Lenhart @Maj. Bill Martin
This makes me sad. Both of your are exceptional posters, witty, obviously well read, well informed and well-intentioned, and I've watched you go at it hammer and tongs for days now, and I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I'm not even sure you disagree with each other on anything significant. I don't see how this is a positive exchange on any level.
COMPLETELY agree!!
I love them both!
STOP it guys............ you're on the same side! ****slapping
No, we most assuredly arent.
OK. If you say so.
I see your point and it is valid nationally. Come to think of it, if Bush had only fought back against all of the lib leftist lies ....things might have turned out very differently. He just didn't have it (Reaganesque) in him to go to the American public and make his case against the 24/7 onslaught of lies and propaganda.I refuse to let a lie stand unchallenged, simply because someone who just tuned in might well believe that crap. I think it isn't so much what we say as how we say it. We just put the shoe out there for the Liberals who support Liberals, and let them wear it. I don't so much get offended any more, and Ronald Reagan helps me respond more calmly. ("There you go again"...)
Here, on the Briefing Room forum, it is different. It's us vs. them via opinions.....and in my humble opinion.....they are bordering on insanity with their constant barrage of insults and emotional displays of hatred against anyone they disagree with. But here, on this forum, both sides of that disagreement are being allowed to continue....unlike at TOS.
Yes, Jim shut down all dissent by zotting anyone he disagreed with (or that disagreed with him). But that is NOT happening here, so ..... I posit that we ....instead of bothering to rebut the insanity....sit back, munch our popcorn, swig our Corona and laugh and point (a lot) at the spoiled brats that can't handle the fact that they are not getting their way HERE. JS....
I have to say that by my joining this forum I have realized something important. I get so busy holding up my big head I forget what I am holding that big head up for.
If all the really real principled Conservatives would really be real Conservatives then they would ALL be voting third party and at that for a third party that stands for what those really real principled Conservatives in reality want: Adherence to the Constitution.
yours truly
Weh Ahh Day EEsh
Okay. Have another snow cone for your kitty.
(http://www.squishable.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/comfortfood_snowcone_13.jpg)
I'm just joking with you. I love your avatar.
A nation that refuses to repent and doubles down on the very ideas anathema to our foundations because they believe them to be 'different' has indeed gone over the edge. We have not even suffered the full consequences of the last 8 years yet. But those are coming.
"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it." - John Adams, July 7, 1775
We have already surrendered our share in the legislature by continuing to vote for and support those lesser evils who have refused to defend the Limitations upon the Government and refusing to resist every Encroachment upon our rights and upon the Constitution itself.
History teaches very clearly what happens to former republics that have arrived where we are today. The thinking that it cannot happen here, or that it is not near to the door, will prove fatal to those who hold that view.The situation is ugly and deteriorating. Only principled people in positions to turn that juggernaut around could do so, and with the entrenched bureaucracy hostile to those efforts, a lot of jobs would have to be eliminated, a lot of personnel cashiered. The swamp at Foggy Bottom needs to be drained.
Civil means to restrain lawless tyrants and tyranny has zero chance of success. ZERO. I'm not infected with Normalcy Bias. Human nature is what it is and history teaches where it always goes.Why else render an entire generation into spineless sheep? They are more malleable. It's hard to put up any effective resistance when they are wounded by polysyllabic invective, much less just being braced and told just how full of shit they are, so how in the world are these skinless, mollycoddled, spineless, neutered neotenic creatures going to fight for a concept that only invites more conflict? They won't because it isn't a 'safe space'.
That's why I am pushing the Constitution Party. I don't expect to win the election this time around. What I want to do is preserve the principles that made this country great, that if it cannot be done now, perhaps sometime in the future the concept of a Constitutional Republic can be revived, and let it be noted that this nation's most incredibly prosperous and productive years were while that Republic's Constitution was followed more closely. If any will learn from history, let's make sure it gets written down, get those ideas planted in younger heads, because what comes next will not endure. No tyranny does.
I envision a need to create a faction, group, Congress of actual Conservatives untouched by the poison at Mordor on the Potomac if for nothing more - to encourage and support our ideology and faith in local matters, and to endure to the end. Maybe - if Providence would permit, our posterity might rebuild a society with liberty from a blueprint we leave it.
No, we most assuredly arent.
I refuse to let a lie stand unchallenged, simply because someone who just tuned in might well believe that crap. I think it isn't so much what we say as how we say it. We just put the shoe out there for the Liberals who support Liberals, and let them wear it. I don't so much get offended any more, and Ronald Reagan helps me respond more calmly. ("There you go again"...)
Someone has to hose the poo off the glass at the monkey house, or no one will ever be able to see how 'cute' they are. :silly:
Time to bury the hatchet and smoke the peace pipe.
STOP it guys............ you're on the same side! ****slapping
I'll drop it, but actually, we're not on the same side. We perhaps would be if the GOP had nominated a better candidate, though.
Time to bury the hatchet and smoke the peace pipe.
If all the really real principled Conservatives would really be real Conservatives then they would ALL be voting third party and at that for a third party that stands for what those really real principled Conservatives in reality want: Adherence to the Constitution.
yours truly
Weh Ahh Day EEsh
I'm always up for a good smoke of the peace pipe. :whistle:
I don't think you, Smokin Joe, or other conservatives advocating a new party are bad people, or liberals, or anything else negative. I simply think you overestimate the political/electoral (as opposed to intellectual/moral) strength of the "true" conservative movement.
That went well. :thud:
What I see are big groups of people who have been pretty much silent for the last election and maybe more. The failure of a viable third party is that there wasn't a candidate who has the flash in the pan projected image as a Trump. He said enough of the "right" things to energize those people. I see the GOP-E people opposed to Trump not because of Trump. They are afraid of that seemingly large group of people who want to "make America great again". And that group probably hold themselves to be true Conservatives, raised by true Conservatives: Those people that fought and WON WWII, worked in the factories, went to church every Sunday. And raised their kids to have personal responsibility and respect. Etcetera. Maybe you count yourself as one of those people. You know Trump isn't the best but is the best "you" have. And I am down with that. Just not "there".
I spent my whole life bucking the system when it needed it. I do/did not have a problem walking up to an elected official and telling them what I think. (Now it is more electronic bitching--email) Even (especially) that effing Sherf. He got "even" in spades. I didn't try to re even the score. I saw him over 5 years later in a Home Depot and he didn't want to talk to me. But I talked anyways. When I told him I had forgiven him he got all red and bulgy like he was going to pop a gasket. He blew that gasket a few days later and his dope dealing, wife beating, car chopping (he got a felony conviction for that and was STILL Sherf), bullshit was done. I view it as God giving me the chance to have my final say before He pulled the plug.
I am at a point in my life/spirituality that my conscience is free. Free at last. Praise the Lord I is ME. Free at last.
How does all that not get worse if she wins?
THANKS!!!! How did you know it was me? I was posting using my old Indian name. Weh-Ahh-Day-Eesh. It means "He Who Walks Through Shallow Waters". My friends call me WADE for short.
This sh*t's just naturally got to stop, and the way it stops is to start drawing hard lines.
I too was given a native name... They tell me it means one of two things:
'Hunting/stalking lone wolf of the mountains'
or
'He who sh*ts in both hands'...
dunno which... go figger.
:shrug: :whistle:
I too was given a native name... They tell me it means one of two things:
'Hunting/stalking lone wolf of the mountains'
or
'He who sh*ts in both hands'...
dunno which... go figger.
:shrug: :whistle:
Now, perhaps my estimates are wrong. Maybe there really are as solid 35-40% of the electorate who are true, hardcore conservatives who can win a three way race.
I'm guessing it means the first one. The other one looks like doing a two thing with two things so it can't really be a one of two if it is a two of two.
That's better than "Two Dogs Humping"
Who said anything about two-twos?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kGjTLRdBsps/UeULZeV-heI/AAAAAAAAAeM/zwLClziRrCE/s1600/classical+amelia.jpg)
That ain't gonna work on me... sorry.
But darling, you look fabulous.
(https://urbanifit.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/hippo-in-tutu2.jpg)
Really? It doesn't make my butt look big, does it?
This is actually a really important post, because it cuts to the core of what is dividing so many of us.
@bigheadfred , I think if we did what you said, those "really really really principled conservatives" would constitute maybe -- maybe -- 20% of the vote. If I'm being generous. Probably closer to 15%. That's my educated guesstimate after seeing who wins primaries and observing politics for a long time.
To my way of thinking, that means that splitting off into a new "true hardcore conservatives only" party is electoral suicide. There would be the Democrats, a GOP consisting only of moderate Republicans, and then the Conservative (or Constitution, or whatever) Party. It would absolutely hand election after election to Democrats. And I'd point out that the "really really really principled progressives" are probably about the same percentage of the vote. But they are relentless, and keep their eyes on the prize.. And they're massively aided by a sympathetic media, and entertaining opinion-shapers (among low information voters, anyway). But they stay within the Democratic Party, and so get to shape policy.
I think that means that conservatives must build coalitions to be successful, and the only vehicle to build such coalitions is the GOP. So, our only realistic chance of regaining power is to get the right conservative candidate who has enough charisma to unite that 20% and win in the primaries, win the nomination and support of the other half of the party, and then starting from that 40% base, be a strong enough candidate to get over the top in November. I think that is our only plausible route to victory.
The thought that we can win simply because our ideas are right ignores the reality that being right isn't enough to convince a majority of voters.
I see that as the only feasible way to get a conservative in office. So, though I have no doubt at all as to the strong conservative beliefs of someone like @Smokin Joe , I think he and others calling for an independent conservative party would succeed only in destroying whatever chance there is to actually put a conservative in the White House. I just don't see it happening. There just aren't enough of us to win on ideology alone. If there were, we should have been able to dominate the GOP primaries with ease, every time. And we can't/haven't.
I don't think you, Smokin Joe, or other conservatives advocating a new party are bad people, or liberals, or anything else negative. I simply think you overestimate the political/electoral (as opposed to intellectual/moral) strength of the "true" conservative movement.
ETA: Now, perhaps my estimates are wrong. Maybe there really are as solid 35-40% of the electorate who are true, hardcore conservatives who can win a three way race. But the fact that I don't believe an independent, hardcore conservative party can get 35-40% of the vote, and therefore don't support such an idea, does not make me a liberal. It simply means my sense of the prevailing political sentiment is wildly wrong.
It most assuredly is an important post! Get's right to the heart of the matter in fact! We have been conditioned to believe that we must select between the candidates of the major parties and ONLY between them but that is a TOTAL lie! We don't have to do that and I won't be guilty of it ever again!
everyone endorsing Trump and the party are damaged
I think that means that conservatives must build coalitions to be successful, and the only vehicle to build such coalitions is the GOP.
This is actually a really important post, because it cuts to the core of what is dividing so many of us.Being right seems to be a prerequisite for being in the minority nowadays, granted. However, I think your estimates are wrong.
@bigheadfred , I think if we did what you said, those "really really really principled conservatives" would constitute maybe -- maybe -- 20% of the vote. If I'm being generous. Probably closer to 15%. That's my educated guesstimate after seeing who wins primaries and observing politics for a long time.
To my way of thinking, that means that splitting off into a new "true hardcore conservatives only" party is electoral suicide. There would be the Democrats, a GOP consisting only of moderate Republicans, and then the Conservative (or Constitution, or whatever) Party. It would absolutely hand election after election to Democrats. And I'd point out that the "really really really principled progressives" are probably about the same percentage of the vote. But they are relentless, and keep their eyes on the prize.. And they're massively aided by a sympathetic media, and entertaining opinion-shapers (among low information voters, anyway). But they stay within the Democratic Party, and so get to shape policy.
I think that means that conservatives must build coalitions to be successful, and the only vehicle to build such coalitions is the GOP. So, our only realistic chance of regaining power is to get the right conservative candidate who has enough charisma to unite that 20% and win in the primaries, win the nomination and support of the other half of the party, and then starting from that 40% base, be a strong enough candidate to get over the top in November. I think that is our only plausible route to victory.
The thought that we can win simply because our ideas are right ignores the reality that being right isn't enough to convince a majority of voters.
I see that as the only feasible way to get a conservative in office. So, though I have no doubt at all as to the strong conservative beliefs of someone like @Smokin Joe , I think he and others calling for an independent conservative party would succeed only in destroying whatever chance there is to actually put a conservative in the White House. I just don't see it happening. There just aren't enough of us to win on ideology alone. If there were, we should have been able to dominate the GOP primaries with ease, every time. And we can't/haven't.
I don't think you, Smokin Joe, or other conservatives advocating a new party are bad people, or liberals, or anything else negative. I simply think you overestimate the political/electoral (as opposed to intellectual/moral) strength of the "true" conservative movement.
ETA: Now, perhaps my estimates are wrong. Maybe there really are as solid 35-40% of the electorate who are true, hardcore conservatives who can win a three way race. But the fact that I don't believe an independent, hardcore conservative party can get 35-40% of the vote, and therefore don't support such an idea, does not make me a liberal. It simply means my sense of the prevailing political sentiment is wildly wrong.
I think that means that conservatives must build coalitions to be successful, and the only vehicle to build such coalitions is the GOP.
Being right seems to be a prerequisite for being in the minority nowadays, granted.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
That just goes to show how small a minority true conservatives really are, and how hard it is to find a true conservative candidate who also can win the votes of the vast majority of the electorate that is not so conservative.:amen:
Never said it was easy. We nominated Nixon twice and then Ford before nominating Reagan.
That just goes to show how small a minority true conservatives really are, and how hard it is to find a true conservative candidate who also can win the votes of the vast majority of the electorate that is not so conservative.
@bigheadfred
Trump publicly announced during the debate last night, exactly what Cruz had stated about why he endorsed him; the list of justices he would appoint in line with Anthony Scalia.
Which Trump would never actually do in a million years.
Never said it was easy. We nominated Nixon twice and then Ford before nominating Reagan.
Not the point I was getting at; the point being that he stated exactly what Cruz gave as his reason for endorsing him. Cruz put his reputation on the line only to have it once again squashed after the tapes emerged; personally I don't think it's a coincidence. After all the GOPe threatened and Priebus threatened that those who did not endorse Trump would be punished; now those same people are falling away from Trump!
This whole crap that he somehow "endorsed him" by resigning himself to voting for him is just playinging into the language of the Trumpkins and his cheerleaders on Fox News.:shrug:
We really need to stop saying Ted did something that he clearly did not.
:shrug:
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuHuyReVIAAniMk.jpg:large)
Follow
G.J. McCarthyVerified account
@gjmccarthy
Sen. Ted Cruz stopped by Tarrant Cty GOP headquarters to work the phones for a bit and meet constituents. #TedCruz #GOP #Republican
I'm still waiting to see positive proof that the words "I endorse Donald Trump" EVER came from Ted Cruz's mouth.I saw where he said that he would vote for Trump, I do not recall ever seeing a direct quote where Cruz endorsed him. If so, it must have been pretty tepid.
This whole crap that he somehow "endorsed him" by resigning himself to voting for him is just playinging into the language of the Trumpkins and his cheerleaders on Fox News.
We really need to stop saying Ted did something that he clearly did not.
I saw where he said that he would vote for Trump, I do not recall ever seeing a direct quote where Cruz endorsed him. If so, it must have been pretty tepid.
I can see where Cruz would be backed into the corner that he would have to make some show of support, but for one who uses words precisely, what he does not say has meaning, too.
I saw where he said that he would vote for Trump, I do not recall ever seeing a direct quote where Cruz endorsed him. If so, it must have been pretty tepid.
I can see where Cruz would be backed into the corner that he would have to make some show of support, but for one who uses words precisely, what he does not say has meaning, too.
And again let me show you the ENTIRE photo:
(http://therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Tec-Cruz-making-calls.jpg)
Amazing what you learn when you get past the propaganda.
I'd expect that kind of image manipulation and gullibility from the left. Might explain why you're pushing a false narrative.
One more time...show me quoted text where Ted Cruz comes out and says "I'm endorsing Donald Trump for President"...or STFU with the lie.
One more time...show me quoted text where Ted Cruz comes out and says "I'm endorsing Donald Trump for President"Thanks, Longmire, I figured we could count on you to come up with any quote. Got a link? Just to verify and all that.
Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
huh
Tepid Ted. It sounds exactly like why he is not the Republican nominee for POTUS.
Thanks, Longmire, I figured we could count on you to come up with any quote. Got a link? Just to verify and all that.
However if those were his words, it's parsed as the fulfillment of an obligation, hardly gushing support.
Sooo Ted has a problem fulfilling commitments. Sounds exactly why he is not the Republican nominee for POTUS. But I can understand why he couldn't give gushing support when he was gushing blood from his azz like that.
You know I can see why Trump uses such simplistic childish schoolyard name calling as a cornerstone of his campaign...it appeals to and connects with simple minded people such as yourself.
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
People are too easily led.
Hence the reason Donny appeals to you.
Sooo Ted has a problem fulfilling commitments. Sounds exactly why he is not the Republican nominee for POTUS. But I can understand why he couldn't give gushing support when he was gushing blood from his azz like that.Actually, Fred. If I were Ted, I would have told Trump, the GOP and the whole bloody party to kiss my arse, it'd be a cold day in Hell before I ever endorsed that SOB after the lies and the smears and what he did to my family.
Actually, Fred. If I were Ted, I would have told Trump, the GOP and the whole bloody party to kiss my arse, it'd be a cold day in Hell before I ever endorsed that SOB after the lies and the smears and what he did to my family.
The endorsement commitment was one Trump would have weaseled out of had he lost. he would have been braying about "stolen" delegates, etc.
I just took Cruz's statement to mean he had his ass against the wall and wanted to stay in the Senate.
As for Trump, he has debased everything he has touched. It will be a long time before the GOP can get the residue scrubbed off.
I would swallow my pride
I would choke on the rhines
But the lack there of would
Leave me empty inside
Swallow my doubt, turn it inside out
Find nothin' but faith in nothin'
Wanna put my tender heart in a blender
Watch it spin round to a beautiful oblivion
Rendezvous then I'm through with you
I just took Cruz's statement to mean he had his ass against the wall and wanted to stay in the Senate.
Thanks, Longmire, I figured we could count on you to come up with any quote. Got a link? Just to verify and all that.
However if those were his words, it's parsed as the fulfillment of an obligation, hardly gushing support.
You do realize Fred's pulling your leg, right? He doesn't like Donny any more than you do.
You are cherry picking what he said.
:nono:
Cruz gave Trump his endorsement, said he was voting for him, and encouraged others to vote Trump. End of story.
Cruz gave Trump his endorsement, said he was voting for him, and encouraged others to vote Trump. End of story.
That's all there is to it. 60-70 pages of agonizing over it, and that's really all there is to it.
"Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.
You are cherry picking what he said. He also said he is voting for Trump because he is the only thing standing in the way of Hillary Clinton as President.
His statement goes beyond honoring his commitment, which frankly I wouldn't blame him if he didn't, but it goes on to the fact that Hillary is a threat to us and the future of the nation.
He is doing it because he believes it is the right thing to do under the circumstances. That is also how I feel about it.
Cruz was a special case. I lost respect for him over it. We stuck by him for the very same issue and now he stabs us in the back. There are 65 pages worth of complaints in that. Maybe more.
@Longmire I'd still like a link, if you don't mind.:google: You're a big boy, look it up.
:google: You're a big boy, look it up.You made the statement, you should have a link. Last time I do your homework.
@Smokin JoeThanks, @DB , I had found it.
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/23/cruz-endorse-trump/
@Smokin Joe You said the same thing last time...I figure you'll eventually figure things out.Got a link? :tongue2:
I guess it must be hard for him to use the proper words to say that then...as it stands he comes off sounding like a troll.
:shrug:
Got a link? :tongue2:
Stop it, Joe! I'm the troll. And since some genius bought the bridge I lived under and made me homeless I don't need the competition. :tongue2:If it's that one the candidates have been trying to sell us since the campaign started, relax. It isn't going anywhere, and they never seem to take possession. Otherwise, when you find a new bridge, make sure to check for structural problems...
If it's that one the candidates have been trying to sell us since the campaign started, relax. It isn't going anywhere, and they never seem to take possession. Otherwise, when you find a new bridge, make sure to check for structural problems...
I couldn't find where he uttered the word endorse.Like I said, if that's an endorsement, it's pretty tepid. It wouldn't be the first time Trump supporters had said Cruz had said something Cruz didn't actually say, but then, they have read the moon and stars tied up with a bow into what Donny has said, so that's not much of a surprise, either.
"After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way. A year ago, I pledged to support the Republican nominee, and I will honor that commitment."
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/23/cruz-endorse-trump/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/23/cruz-endorse-trump/)
I wouldn't go to Londonstan if you paid someone to put me on a boat and send me there. Besides, I don't speak camel phlegm.
I couldn't find where he uttered the word endorse.
"After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way. A year ago, I pledged to support the Republican nominee, and I will honor that commitment."
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/23/cruz-endorse-trump/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/23/cruz-endorse-trump/)
:nono:
The challenge was to produce a quote that evidenced Ted Cruz endorsing Trump not write a paean to St. Teddy, and what I provided was sufficient to meet the challenge.
Cruz gave Trump his endorsement, said he was voting for him, and encouraged others to vote Trump. End of story.
You know, London Bridge is less than a couple hundred miles from my house.
I believe the key to understanding what Cruz did is to realize that he does whatever Mark Levin tells him to do. Levin is digging in and turning into a trumpbot and Cruz will not cross him.
I believe the key to understanding what Cruz did is to realize that he does whatever Mark Levin tells him to do. Levin is digging in and turning into a trumpbot and Cruz will not cross him.
I do sound like that. I kind of get tired of people putting politicians on pedestals. They are politicians. The higher up the chain a politician goes the worse they get.
And it is HARD to be anything but a simpleton when surrounded by so many geniuses.
I couldn't find where he uttered the word endorse.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.
Good grief...you still didn't provide a link and the quote is:
A year ago, I pledged to support the Republican nominee, and I will honor that commitment."
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/23/cruz-endorse-trump/
You know, London Bridge is less than a couple hundred miles from my house.
Like I said, if that's an endorsement, it's pretty tepid. It wouldn't be the first time Trump supporters had said Cruz had said something Cruz didn't actually say, but then, they have read the moon and stars tied up with a bow into what Donny has said, so that's not much of a surprise, either.
I heard Cruz on the radio this morning.
He was in West Texas, yesterday. He was asked if he would still vote for Trump.
He said he would still vote for Trump because Hillary is a disaster.
He also stated that the differences between he and Trump were well known and laid out by him (Cruz) over the last year.
So, I'd say it comes out as a lukewarm "stop Hillary" endorsement, based on yesterday's comments.
I think Cruz will run for POTUS again, which is why I think he felt he had to vote for Trump now, or risk the rejection of not following the "party line" in 4 to 8 years from now.
I believe the key to understanding what Cruz did is to realize that he does whatever Mark Levin tells him to do. Levin is digging in and turning into a trumpbot and Cruz will not cross him.I believe the key to understanding what Cruz said is in remembering he is a lawyer. Words do, indeed, mean something, and Cruz chose his carefully. He pledged his support and he was honoring that pledge.
I understand supporters wanting to minimize the Cruz sellout. I was a Cruzer from nearly the first day and argued long and hard on his behalf. But folks, a vote is the ULTIMATE ENDORSEMENT in an election/campaign. And by saying he will vote trump he is encouraging his supporters to do likewise. Period. End of.
Semantics are semantics. Cruz is endorsing Trump regardless of what spin anyone puts on it. There is zero difference between doing what he is doing and speaking four words aloud.
Good grief...you still didn't provide a link and the quote is:
A year ago, I pledged to support the Republican nominee, and I will honor that commitment."
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/23/cruz-endorse-trump/
I understand supporters wanting to minimize the Cruz sellout. I was a Cruzer from nearly the first day and argued long and hard on his behalf. But folks, a vote is the ULTIMATE ENDORSEMENT in an election/campaign. And by saying he will vote trump he is encouraging his supporters to do likewise. Period. End of.You are free to read into his statement all sorts of things which were not said.
Semantics are semantics. Cruz is endorsing Trump regardless of what spin anyone puts on it. There is zero difference between doing what he is doing and speaking four words aloud.
You are free to read into his statement all sorts of things which were not said.
He qualified his statement when he said Trump is the only thing standing in the way of Hillary.
By your metric, all those on this website who are grudgingly voting for Trump ONLY to stop Hillary are ENDORSING Trump. Really? Even though they have repeatedly said they will only do so to stop her.
There you go again, seeing what you want to see when everything is laid out in front of you.
No where in there does he use the word "endorse".
You're wrong of course, which is what happens when you walk around in a haze of confirmation bias. :shrug:Read the headline? That is some journalist trying to sell papers, not a quote of what Cruz said. Journalists are notorious for misleading headlines.
Read the entire Trump endorsement statement Ted Cruz made instead of cherry picking and you'll see the exact endorsement quote I highlighted.
Again read the ENTIRE statement and look for the word ENDORSE to find the highlighted quote.
Or just read the headline of the article you linked..Ted Cruz Confirms He is Endorsing Donald Trump
-btw Cruz just REAFFIRMED his support for Trump yesterday after the debate. :seeya:
Wrong, and apparently not capable of running simple key word searches either. :laugh:From someone who will not provide a link to support their allegations, I really don't care what you think at this point. I am capable of much, but you made the assertion, now back it up with sources or it is pure BS.
Wrong, and apparently not capable of running simple key word searches either. :laugh:Well, I read the quote you provided, and had to go dig up my own link. In fact the quote you provided (shock and horror) was only a short excerpt. In the interest of avoiding such entrapment (so like a troll!) and carrying on a better informed discussion, I will provide what you would not.
This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.
In Cleveland, I urged voters “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable – that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.
Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights—free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment—the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”
For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees – including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice – and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.
Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.
Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.
Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.
Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.
Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.
These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.
If Clinton wins, we know—with 100% certainty—that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.
My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.
We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom—including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.
Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.
The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.
Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.
I am capable of much,
Quote from Ted Cruz statement: checkMiss previous post in your bedwetting excitement to gig me: Check.
Link to Ted Cruz statement: check
Keyword to search for: check
You CAN do this! :laugh:
Looks like there's some game-playing with the word "endorse". Yes, technically Cruz did endorse Trump. I think some of the posters on this thread are trying to imply that means some sort of approval of Trump or "jumping on the Trump train". Cruz's statement makes it clear that neither of those are true - he is recommending people vote for Trump in order for Clinton to not win, and saying that is how he will vote.
@Smokin Joe You did it! 888high58888You could have saved everyone a lot of time by just posting the full quote and the link. Obviously you had them if you posted the partial quote from the article. So, wave all you want.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him. -Ted Cruz
Looks like there's some game-playing with the word "endorse". Yes, technically Cruz did endorse Trump. I think some of the posters on this thread are trying to imply that means some sort of approval of Trump or "jumping on the Trump train". Cruz's statement makes it clear that neither of those are true - he is recommending people vote for Trump in order for Clinton to not win, and saying that is how he will vote.
I posted the dictionary definition above/upthread. Words either mean things or they do not. It is simply not possible to credibly argue that a man who endorses someone is not on their 'train'. Endorsement is approval by definition. What Cruz made clear is that he endorses Trump and therefore approves and wants others to do likewise. If he did not intend for his decision to influence other voters to get on the Trump Train with him, he would have kept his choice to vote Trump to himself. He would not be making calls on behalf of the GOP sitting in front of a bunch of Trump/Pence signs.
I know it sucks. But thats the reality. People trying to wordsmith the truth away are simply trying to rationalize his actions in order to keep supporting Cruz regardless of what he does or says. Which is the very same thing that Trumps supporters are railed for doing.
If it's true for one, it's true for both.
I heard Cruz on the radio this morning.
He was in West Texas, yesterday. He was asked if he would still vote for Trump.
He said he would still vote for Trump because Hillary is a disaster.
He also stated that the differences between he and Trump were well known and laid out by him (Cruz) over the last year.
So, I'd say it comes out as a lukewarm "stop Hillary" endorsement, based on yesterday's comments.
I think Cruz will run for POTUS again, which is why I think he felt he had to vote for Trump now, or risk the rejection of not following the "party line" in 4 to 8 years from now.
You could have saved everyone a lot of time by just posting the full quote and the link. Obviously you had them if you posted the partial quote from the article.
@Groucho Tex
I read last night that Cruz told a reporter he still supports Trump...even after Trump was heard on tape admitting to sexual battery. And Cruz has daughters.
I'm sorry, I'm done with him. Just the other day I posted that I still believed he was a good man. I don't know or care anymore, really. He says Hillary is utterly unacceptable. Well, that's true, but isn't a serial sexual abuser of women equally unacceptable?
So much for conservative men believing that women should be protected. Cruz can stand or fall without my help from now on.
@Norm Lenhart, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Considering the topic of this thread , the article it links to and the fact that the second post on it has the FULL Ted Cruz statement from his Facebook page, you and the other nevertrumps could have saved everyone a lot of time by simply following along from the beginning.I don't 'Facebook'. Can't play video from that. You could have posted the link.
Just sayin... :seeya:
No. And I see exactly no one rebutting my posts.
Hows muh statue comin' Kat? ;)
Actually I did. Haven't seen your response yet though.
Well, IMHO the strength of the 'true conservative movement' was/is larger than anyone imagined.
Based on what actual evidence, other than wishful thinking?
In the 50+ years since 1964, we've nominated a conservative exactly twice, and it was the same guy both times. Why has this great, secret mass of conservatives never once come out of the woodwork since to nominate another? It's not just 2016 -- it's every single other primary going all the way back to 1988. And before then, to '68, '72, and '76. True conservatism includes love of country, patriotism etc., yet those people couldn't be bothered to support a conservative in the primaries?
The only rational explanation for that is that they simply don't exist. Our numbers are what the primaries say they are.
Your observations are valid, but in my mind, miss the point:
The reason liberalism is winning (and there is no denying that it is) is not because of any merit. The entire leftist 3rd way/ socialist/ communist paradigm has been soundly proven to be a poor course, over and over again. Every time it is tried, it results in death, destruction, and a starving, enslaved citizenry.
The reason it is winning is because there is no opposition to it.
Why?
All of the woes you foresee are true - but if we had representatives who were in fact true believers....
Where?
EDIT:
"@Norm Lenhart, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. "
Thats not rebuttal. That's diversion.
I disagree. You assume that the nomination process is a reflection of the population. I don't believe that to be the case.
even after Trump was heard on tape admitting to sexual battery.
@DiogenesLamp
Based on what actual evidence? Where is the proof that this huge voting bloc of conservatives that never votes actually exists and is willing to vote for the "right" candidate?
It's difficult to prove a negative, but my evidence is the fact that they don't cast votes for conservative candidates. And I know all the excuses about voters being "tricked" and "misled" by nasty media campaigns such as the one that supposedly sank Ted Cruz. But aren't we talking about a silent majority of true blue conservative voters? Aren't those the exact people who should be able to see through that stuff in a heartbeat, and know that it was just garbage?
I'd suggest that if they really are so easily led off the trail and willing to let Trump have the nomination, then they really weren't true blue conservatives to begin with.
Not sure what numbers you are using.
First, just talking about this last nomination cycle....
....more people voted for more conservative candidates than Trump, second, in several states people didn't vote and the party decided who to throw their support behind, and third, many of the votes were cross-over votes by democrats and uncommitted. The party decided the candidate - it was not a representative vote process. What am I missing?
I'm looking at the actual numbers for every primary since 1968. The only true conservative to win the nomination in that time was Reagan. One guy.
First, in talking about just this last nomination cycle cycle, you're ignoring all the prior history of conservatives not winning the primary. If we truly are a majority of the GOP electorate, there's no way that should happen with that level of consistency. If "true conservatives" are really a majority within the GOP, then they should be able to nominate more than one "true conservative" over the last 50 years.
[....]more people voted for more conservative candidates than Trump, second, in several states people didn't vote and the party decided who to throw their support behind, and third, many of the votes were cross-over votes by democrats and uncommitted. The party decided the candidate - it was not a representative vote process. What am I missing?
The first issue here is your definition of "conservative". I'd wager that there are a great many people who call themselves "conservative" that wouldn't agree with your definition. Was Kasich a conservative? Bush? Christie? Obviously not Trump....
And that's really where we fall apart -- we love to talk about the high percentage of self-identified conservatives, but then castigate many of those very same people for not being sufficiently conservative. And many Trump supporters are people who self-identify as conservative. It's the label that is misleading because it is used so subjectively.
The candidate generally touted here as the most conservative candidate -- almost the ideal conservative in terms of policy -- was Ted Cruz. And he got a grand total of 7.8 million votes. That has nothing to do with crossovers from the Democratic Party -- it was the raw number of votes he received.
So why didn't he get more? Again, voters who are so easily confused/distracted from the issues by stupid stories about his dad or affairs aren't really "true conservative" voters. They're fringe voters, not core, committed conservatives. You can come up with excuses for Cruz (and for every other conservative who didn't win between 1968 and 2016), but all of those excuses are dependent on such voters actually existing in the first place, and that has not been proven. It's simply asserted:
"I believe there are many millions more true conservative voters out there, and the reason I personally believe they didn't vote is [insert excuse]." But the evidence of such voters actually existing in the first place is never offered, and indeed, the repeated failure of them to show up in the primaries over the course of the last half-century suggested that they don't exist at all.
@DiogenesLamp
Based on what actual evidence? Where is the proof that this huge voting bloc of conservatives that never votes actually exists and is willing to vote for the "right" candidate?
It's difficult to prove a negative, but my evidence is the fact that they don't cast votes for conservative candidates. And I know all the excuses about voters being "tricked" and "misled" by nasty media campaigns such as the one that supposedly sank Ted Cruz. But aren't we talking about a silent majority of true blue conservative voters? Aren't those the exact people who should be able to see through that stuff in a heartbeat, and know that it was just garbage?
I'd suggest that if they really are so easily led off the trail and willing to let Trump have the nomination, then they really weren't true blue conservatives to begin with.
Bill, did you read what I wrote? It's almost like you wrote your answer before you read my comment.
@DiogenesLampApparently Conservative voters do cast votes for conservative candidates. Or did you miss the TEA party influence on the last midterm? It was real enough. This time though, other factors are intervening.
Based on what actual evidence? Where is the proof that this huge voting bloc of conservatives that never votes actually exists and is willing to vote for the "right" candidate?
It's difficult to prove a negative, but my evidence is the fact that they don't cast votes for conservative candidates. And I know all the excuses about voters being "tricked" and "misled" by nasty media campaigns such as the one that supposedly sank Ted Cruz. But aren't we talking about a silent majority of true blue conservative voters? Aren't those the exact people who should be able to see through that stuff in a heartbeat, and know that it was just garbage?
I'd suggest that if they really are so easily led off the trail and willing to let Trump have the nomination, then they really weren't true blue conservatives to begin with.
I read it exactly.
What you're doing is assuming a fact to be true -- that there are very large numbers of "true believing" conservative voters out there -- and then coming up with subjective reasons/excuses why those numbers aren't reflected at the polls. What you have not done is produce any evidence that such voters exist in the first place. If I missed that part of your post, then could you please highlight or copy it? Because I've reread your post a couple of times, and still don't see that evidence.
The only thing you said that even came close to constituting "evidence" that such large numbers of non-voting conservatives exist was the claim that "more people voted for conservatives than for Trump." Though this doesn't address the issue of those who didn't vote at all, let's start there.
Do you consider that Kasich ran as a "true believing" conservative?
Do you consider Rubio a "true believing conservative" even though he did not support Ted Cruz's efforts to shut down the government over ObamaCare?
@Maj. Bill Martin
You used the same type of evidence you claim I am using to show that they don't exist.
At this point I don't know if they exist or not, but the party continuing to pick non-conservatives is not evidence either of their existence or their non-existence. The will of the party may well (and, I believe it does) not reflect the wishes of the voters.
Just curious - where did the "true believing conservative" phrase come from?
I don't know that he's done that. In the tape, he very specifically says, "And when you're a star they let you do it."
Voluntary contact is not battery.
Well, I'm being asked to prove a negative "prove they're not their". The only possible evidence of that is to show that they don't vote, which I've shown.
I agree. But I think where this discussion gets squishy is in terms of defining "conservatives".
Hell if I know. Someone else mentioned it, so I ran with it. Again, this started in the context of the feasibility of a third party. The difficult part is that a lot of these discussions come down to a condemnation of "RINO's", and lamenting that there aren't enough staunch conservatives. Often, the context is a failure to support Cruz's attempted filibusters, etc. So the idea we're trying to capture is that of a consistent conservative in the mode of a Ted Cruz, because the rest of them are staying with the GOP.
So if we're talking about a new, conservative Third Party, the paradigm for the type of candidate would seem to be a pre-Trump endorsement Ted Cruz. He'd need at least 40 million votes to win a three way race (and that's giving him every possible break), and I just can't fathom where the 32 million people who didn't vote for him in the primary, but would vote for him in the general election, are actually coming from. It seems to be a huge assumption to me without any basis in fact.