The Briefing Room
General Category => Elections 2024 => Topic started by: mystery-ak on April 04, 2023, 06:27:55 pm
-
Kasich: Trump Will Never Be President — ‘Normal,’ Traditional Republicans Won’t Vote for Him
Pam Key 4 Apr 2023
Former Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” that “normal people” who are “traditional Republicans” will never vote for former President Donald Trump after his indictment.
Mitchell asked, “You were a governor, congressman, you know this whole landscape. How long is this going to last? What if there’s indictment on indictment? Does he build on the victimization? Does it help him with primary voters?”
Kasich said, “I think in this case, there are a lot of Republicans that say, is this really a legitimate and fair charge? Frankly, no one is above the law, but it will be interesting to find out how has everybody else been treated because a public figure shouldn’t have more scrutiny than anybody else. A lot of Republicans are like this is political. I talked with some folks this morning in the gym. We wish he would go away.”
He continued, “When you look at Georgia, no Republican or Democrat that’s knowledgeable that doesn’t look at the Georgia grand jury or the documents case, which seems to be percolating even more. I think that’s kind of the end of it. I suppose Republicans could put up with this thing. We have to see how the trial goes. You have to see what happens with the press conference today with the prosecutor. How does Trump handle himself today?”
Kasich added, “I suspect that if Georgia comes back on the vote pressure scheme or either the document case, I think that’s going to be too much water for him to talk. But he is like the master of escape. We have to wait and see. Here is what I know: there’s no way the guy will be president. There’s no way these Independent voters and Republicans who are sort of normal people who are the traditional Republicans, let me say that. I don’t want to call anybody abnormal but traditional Republicans. There’s no way in a million years that those people are going to vote for him. So my view is, he will never be president.”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/04/04/kasich-trump-will-never-be-president-normal-traditional-republicans-wont-vote-for-him/
-
GOP Presidential Primary loser, Kasich, says "what?"
The GOP of 2023 is not the same as the GOP of yore.
Bush '43 Admin destroyed the cohesity of the Reagan coalition.
Fiscal conservatives, Constitutional conservatives, Immigration conservatives, and Adam Smith capitalism conservatives were driven from the party as RINO's, 2001-2009.
-
Kasich who?
-
When I want astute political commentary, I always look to this idiot son of a mailman.
-
I know people here hates him, but he is right
-
When I want astute political commentary, I always look to this idiot son of a mailman.
888high58888
-
A great many normal, traditional Republicans voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. Or maybe Kasich forgot that.
He'd probably lose a bit of that support in 2024, but his real problem is going to be independents.
-
Trump might get 95% of republicans, but if he loses independents by 13 points it doesn't matter. Biden is a weak incumbent. His favorability has fallen 8 points since election day. Leave it to republicans to find someone with even worse numbers! ****sheep****
-
Kasich still exists in punditry circuits? MSNBC truly has scraped the bottom of the barrel to find a republican. Leave it to johnny to cut to the chase......
(https://chrisabides.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/kasichfruitninja.gif?w=1108)
-
Kasich still exists in punditry circuits? MSNBC truly has scraped the bottom of the barrel to find a republican. Leave it to johnny to cut to the chase......
(https://chrisabides.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/kasichfruitninja.gif?w=1108)
Guys like Kasich are what got Trump elected in the first place.
-
Trump might get 95% of republicans, but if he loses independents by 13 points it doesn't matter. Biden is a weak incumbent. His favorability has fallen 8 points since election day. Leave it to republicans to find someone with even worse numbers! ****sheep****
I'm more worried about Newsom running than Biden
-
Normal republicans are now Called "RINO'S" and they represent about 5% of party. Kasich represents this dying branch of the party.
-
I know people here hates him, but he is right
Yes, he is right. Whether one likes him or not it doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
-
Yes, he is right. Whether one likes him or not it doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
???? So none of the 80,000,000+ people who originally voted for Trump weren't normal traditional Republicans?
Gee, maybe Johnny will run again and all the normal traditional Republicans will vote for him. *****rollingeyes*****
-
I don't think he is right. If he was arguing that Trump can't win independents, that would be correct. But this whole "ordinary, normal Republicans" won't vote for Trump is just more self-centered crap on his end. He obviously sees himself as an "ordinary, normal Republican", and he won't vote for Trump. So, he generalizes that to everyone else.
But it isn't true. Sure, there are some of us here who won't vote for Trump in the general election if he's the nominee, but we're the anomaly. He'd still likely get 80% or so of GOP voters no matter what the mailman's kid says.
People believing their own opinions are more popular than they are is kind of a pet peeve, and the Bush/Romney/Kasich wing has been guilty of that since 2016.
-
???? So none of the 80,000,000+ people who originally voted for Trump weren't normal traditional Republicans?
Exactly my point.
-
I don't think he is right. If he was arguing that Trump can't win independents, that would be correct. But this whole "ordinary, normal Republicans" won't vote for Trump is just more self-centered crap on his end. He obviously sees himself as an "ordinary, normal Republican", and he won't vote for Trump. So, he generalizes that to everyone else.
But it isn't true. Sure, there are some of us here who won't vote for Trump in the general election if he's the nominee, but we're the anomaly. He'd still likely get 80% or so of GOP voters no matter what the mailman's kid says.
People believing their own opinions are more popular than they are is kind of a pet peeve, and the Bush/Romney/Kasich wing has been guilty of that since 2016.
@Maj. Bill Martin Why is it that you think that Trump will not get any of the Independent votes?
-
cato writes:
"Trump might get 95% of republicans, but if he loses independents by 13 points it doesn't matter. Biden is a weak incumbent. His favorability has fallen 8 points since election day."
It doesn't matter if The Party's "incumbent" is weak.
So long as the underground election apparatus is "strong" in the necessary states, ANY Republican presidential candidate will be kept from winning by virtue of the numbers -- those "numbers" being the votes to win in the Electoral College.
Tell me... how long has it been since you saw a dem-communist complaining about the Electoral College?
Why is that...?
-
cato writes:
"Trump might get 95% of republicans, but if he loses independents by 13 points it doesn't matter. Biden is a weak incumbent. His favorability has fallen 8 points since election day."
It doesn't matter if The Party's "incumbent" is weak.
So long as the underground election apparatus is "strong" in the necessary states, ANY Republican presidential candidate will be kept from winning by virtue of the numbers -- those "numbers" being the votes to win in the Electoral College.
Tell me... how long has it been since you saw a dem-communist complaining about the Electoral College?
Why is that...?
Even if Trump does manage to get off on the 34 counts against him, they will steal yet another election. No doubts.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin Why is it that you think that Trump will not get any of the Independent votes?
He'll get some, obviously. But there are just a ton of independents out there who absolutely despise the guy and won't vote for him under any circumstances.
-
???? So none of the 80,000,000+ people who originally voted for Trump weren't normal traditional Republicans?
Gee, maybe Johnny will run again and all the normal traditional Republicans will vote for him. *****rollingeyes*****
When I say he’s right, I mean he’s right that Trump won’t be president. Most of the Republicans will probably vote for him. But the swing voters that he desperately needs will not.
-
When I say he’s right, I mean he’s right that Trump won’t be president. Most of the Republicans will probably vote for him. But the swing voters that he desperately needs will not.
It's the voter fraud that I'm concerned about.
Secondly, with 34 felony counts against him, I'm not so sure that Trump will be running.
-
It doesn't matter if The Party's "incumbent" is weak.
So long as the underground election apparatus is "strong" in the necessary states, ANY Republican presidential candidate will be kept from winning by virtue of the numbers -- those "numbers" being the votes to win in the Electoral College.
Tell me... how long has it been since you saw a dem-communist complaining about the Electoral College?
Why is that...?
Oh, I think the dems would abolish the electoral college after what happened in 2016. For the time being, all they have is the unenforceable compact between not-enough states.
You'll please forgive me if I acknowledge what I have seen lately ... and that is lots of claims from the Trump supporters about the 2024 election having already been stolen. Not only are we saddled with Trump in a binary election, but he has already lost! Neither of these is a foregone conclusion, and there is plenty of time to nominate a candidate who is not loathed by swing voters and to exploit the election laws in our favor.
-
It's the voter fraud that I'm concerned about.
Secondly, with 34 felony counts against him, I'm not so sure that Trump will be running.
My concern is Trump will drag down ticket Republicans down with him in the general.
-
When I want astute political commentary, I always look to this idiot son of a mailman.
I think you forgot the /s.
-
I voted for Trump in the 2016 GOP Primary and Presidential Election.
Trumps's 2016 GOP challengers were wet noodle Globalists.
No way in hell would I vote for Hillary Clinton.
I figured there would be an impeachment, no matter who won. GOP would started impeachment against Hillary the day after the election. Trump is too ethically-challeneged to not be impeached.
"Regular" Republicans want to vote for a Pro-America President, not a Globalist, Open-Border, Climate Change tool.
-
Kasich: Trump Will Never Be President — ‘Normal,’ Traditional Republicans Won’t Vote for Him
Pam Key 4 Apr 2023
Former Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” that “normal people” who are “traditional Republicans” will never vote for former President Donald Trump after his indictment.
Mitchell asked, “You were a governor, congressman, you know this whole landscape. How long is this going to last? What if there’s indictment on indictment? Does he build on the victimization? Does it help him with primary voters?”
Kasich said, “I think in this case, there are a lot of Republicans that say, is this really a legitimate and fair charge? Frankly, no one is above the law, but it will be interesting to find out how has everybody else been treated because a public figure shouldn’t have more scrutiny than anybody else. A lot of Republicans are like this is political. I talked with some folks this morning in the gym. We wish he would go away.”
He continued, “When you look at Georgia, no Republican or Democrat that’s knowledgeable that doesn’t look at the Georgia grand jury or the documents case, which seems to be percolating even more. I think that’s kind of the end of it. I suppose Republicans could put up with this thing. We have to see how the trial goes. You have to see what happens with the press conference today with the prosecutor. How does Trump handle himself today?”
Kasich added, “I suspect that if Georgia comes back on the vote pressure scheme or either the document case, I think that’s going to be too much water for him to talk. But he is like the master of escape. We have to wait and see. Here is what I know: there’s no way the guy will be president. There’s no way these Independent voters and Republicans who are sort of normal people who are the traditional Republicans, let me say that. I don’t want to call anybody abnormal but traditional Republicans. There’s no way in a million years that those people are going to vote for him. So my view is, he will never be president.”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/04/04/kasich-trump-will-never-be-president-normal-traditional-republicans-wont-vote-for-him/
This guy is more brain dead than Fetterman.
-
I'm the "Traditional Republican", a Reagan Republican, the favorite President of my lifetime. I'm not a huge Trump fan though applaud most of his policies during his four years. I'd rather see others less divisive win the nomination BUT if it's Trump vs Biden absolutely I will be voting Trump.
-
I'm the "Traditional Republican", a Reagan Republican, the favorite President of my lifetime. I'm not a huge Trump fan though applaud most of his policies during his four years. I'd rather see others less divisive win the nomination BUT if it's Trump vs Biden absolutely I will be voting Trump.
:thumbsup:
-
I would think that "Trump fatigue" will set in and this may lead "regular Republicans" to vote for another candidate, but if Trump becomes the nominee then I imagine many who dislike him will "hold their noses" and vote for for him to avoid another incompetent Biden term. No Republican of any stripe would vote for Biden as a protest vote against Trump. But they may sit the election out, which poses other difficulties for the party.
-
Trump is going to be tied to any candidate that we put out. This is accepting harsh, cold reality. They’re gonna have to find a way to walk a fine line on this one.
But that doesn’t mean that Republicans should be going back to accommodating China and assisting jobs being sent overseas, or supporting a wide-open border
-
Trump still has a lane to becoming President again. He'll speak to the issues that traditional Dem and GOP politicians are ignoring ... the de-industrialization of America and America's descent to become a client state of the Chinese Communist Party.
-
The problem is that anti-globalist, pro-America church-going regular folks, who don't necessarily think of themselves as Republicans or conservatives, will not vote for someone else. I really do fear the GOP cannot win a national election anymore.
OTOH Kasich said the same thing in 2016, and if we continue to go in the direction we are going, by the time 2024 rolls around the antipathy toward Biden may be sufficient that whoever gets the nomination will win.
-
The problem is that anti-globalist, pro-America church-going regular folks, who don't necessarily think of themselves as Republicans or conservatives, will not vote for someone else. I really do fear the GOP cannot win a national election anymore.
OTOH Kasich said the same thing in 2016, and if we continue to go in the direction we are going, by the time 2024 rolls around the antipathy toward Biden may be sufficient that whoever gets the nomination will win.
I agree.... I still contend the Republicans will never again win a presidential election. The numbers just don't add up anymore.
-
I agree.... I still contend the Republicans will never again win a presidential election. The numbers just don't add up anymore.
That can turn on a dime. More people count themselves conservative than you know.
The only real successes come from a true message - True Conservatism rings like a bell, and people come a'running.
That is why Reagan's coalition is so very important.
-
The problem is that anti-globalist, pro-America church-going regular folks, who don't necessarily think of themselves as Republicans or conservatives, will not vote for someone else. I really do fear the GOP cannot win a national election anymore.
OTOH Kasich said the same thing in 2016, and if we continue to go in the direction we are going, by the time 2024 rolls around the antipathy toward Biden may be sufficient that whoever gets the nomination will win.
With all the current ballot manufacturing taking place that is a given @massadvj
-
With all the current ballot manufacturing taking place that is a given @massadvj
True. Plus all the Republicans are fleeing to the red states, leaving the political situation hopeless in places like Michigan and Wisconsin.
-
True. Plus all the Republicans are fleeing to the red states, leaving the political situation hopeless in places like Michigan and Wisconsin.
Divorce is inevitable.
-
That can turn on a dime. More people count themselves conservative than you know.
The only real successes come from a true message - True Conservatism rings like a bell, and people come a'running.
That is why Reagan's coalition is so very important.
I think it would have to get so unbearably bad for there to be a change. You would think that the voters of Chicago, after Lori Lightfoot, would have learned. Instead, they voted for somebody farther to the left than Lightfoot.
-
With all the current ballot manufacturing taking place that is a given @massadvj
Unfortunately nothing is being done and it is allowed to continue. 9999hair out0000
-
I think it would have to get so unbearably bad for there to be a change. You would think that the voters of Chicago, after Lori Lightfoot, would have learned. Instead, they voted for somebody farther to the left than Lightfoot.
Well Chicago proper is a liberal hell hole. No surprise.
You'd have to get out in the burbs before you will see different.
-
Divorce is inevitable.
I fear you are correct. I also fear it will not be an amicable "you go your way, I'll go mine" split up.
-
I fear you are correct. I also fear it will not be an amicable "you go your way, I'll go mine" split up.
It'd be okay, but the slugs on the left would want more than their half.
-
Well Chicago proper is a liberal hell hole. No surprise.
You'd have to get out in the burbs before you will see different.
Burbs? Where do you think the jackals will go after they've stripped the bones clean in the city limits.
-
I think it would have to get so unbearably bad for there to be a change. You would think that the voters of Chicago, after Lori Lightfoot, would have learned. Instead, they voted for somebody farther to the left than Lightfoot.
Unfortunately, it has to get really, really bad. Case in point is NYC, which went deep, deep into the toilet before voters finally got enough with the Dinkins (mal)administration and ended up voting for Giuliani.
-
Burbs? Where do you think the jackals will go after they've stripped the bones clean in the city limits.
Beside the point.
What I am saying is that Chicago proper is a liberal hell hole. You get out in the burbs, and many areas are very Conservative. I grew up in the far south side... Among very Conservative Dutchmen. My grandparents are a good example... Hard core Republicans til the day they died. They didn't start voting for Democrats until AFTER they died.
-
Beside the point.
What I am saying is that Chicago proper is a liberal hell hole. You get out in the burbs, and many areas are very Conservative. I grew up in the far south side... Among very Conservative Dutchmen. My grandparents are a good example... Hard core Republicans til the day they died. They didn't start voting for Democrats until AFTER they died.
Well, my point is that there will be a point in time soon, when the ferals will start feasting on those in the burbs. Its inevitiable, so though it might be conservative right now, they'll be getting the hell out of Dodge too..... soon.
-
Unfortunately, it has to get really, really bad. Case in point is NYC, which went deep, deep into the toilet before voters finally got enough with the Dinkins (mal)administration and ended up voting for Giuliani.
That probably is applicable on a national level, also
“MAGA Republican” is working for the Democrats but I don’t believe that’s a bottomless well for them
I just don’t know how deep that bottom goes
-
Trump might get 95% of republicans, but if he loses independents by 13 points it doesn't matter. Biden is a weak incumbent. His favorability has fallen 8 points since election day. Leave it to republicans to find someone with even worse numbers! ****sheep****
@cato potatoe
Truth to tell,I honestly expect Biden to announce he is dropping out of race at the last minute,due to "health conditions".
That way,whatever communist the DNC has picked to run with less time for the RNC and Trump to demonize him/her/undecided,while the Dims can continue to take shots at Trump.
Anybody have any idea who this will "choose at the last minute"?
-
Normal republicans are now Called "RINO'S" and they represent about 5% of party. Kasich represents this dying branch of the party.
@yodaspock
Only because it would be impolite to call them "Dim-Lites".
-
The problem is that anti-globalist, pro-America church-going regular folks, who don't necessarily think of themselves as Republicans or conservatives, will not vote for someone else. I really do fear the GOP cannot win a national election anymore.
OTOH Kasich said the same thing in 2016, and if we continue to go in the direction we are going, by the time 2024 rolls around the antipathy toward Biden may be sufficient that whoever gets the nomination will win.
@massadvj
So does everyone else.
Trump is the only candidate that can really get people fired up,but how do you beat fraudulent votes?
-
@massadvj
So does everyone else.
Trump is the only candidate that can really get people fired up,but how do you beat fraudulent votes?
How do you beat fraudulent votes? With a stick. Until dead.
Orrr...produce more than the other side.
-
How do you beat fraudulent votes? With a stick. Until dead.
Orrr...produce more than the other side.
@bigheadfred
Gee,why didn't I think of that? It sounds soooo simple!
Sooo,how do we do it? Do we cheat more than the Dims? Is that even possible?
-
I doubt I'll vote for him in the Primary but iif Trump wins the nomination there is only one thing that will prevent me from voting for him in the General and that's if he selects the nutcase Marjorie Talor Green as his VP. Just can't do it.
-
I know people here hates him, but he is right
If crooked elections aren't stopped, no Republican will be again.
-
I doubt I'll vote for him in the Primary but iif Trump wins the nomination there is only one thing that will prevent me from voting for him in the General and that's if he selects the nutcase Marjorie Talor Green as his VP. Just can't do it.
I wouldn't give a fig is Clarabell...the clown from Howdy Doody, is on the ticket.
Already see that strategy has worked 'wonders' for the Democrats
-
I wouldn't give a fig is Clarabell...the clown from Howdy Doody, is on the ticket.
Already see that strategy has worked 'wonders' for the Democrats
That is exactly wrong @DCPatriot , and exactly why the Republican party is so full of RINOs... And that is exactly why the Republican party is not able to fight.
THAT is the problem. And it is not fixed by stacking all your chips on a messiah. What fixes it is very selective voting toward adherence to orthodoxy, from the ground up. PERIOD.
That's the fix, TEA Party style. That is what will build a Conservative political machine that WILL fight.
And that is the ONLY thing. All the rest is bullcrap.
-
That is exactly wrong @DCPatriot , and exactly why the Republican party is so full of RINOs... And that is exactly why the Republican party is not able to fight.
THAT is the problem. And it is not fixed by stacking all your chips on a messiah. What fixes it is very selective voting toward adherence to orthodoxy, from the ground up. PERIOD.
That's the fix, TEA Party style. That is what will build a Conservative political machine that WILL fight.
And that is the ONLY thing. All the rest is bullcrap.
Amen. I don't think however that our Republic has time to 'fix' things; it's crumbling at a fast pace. China, Russia and others are gearing up to ensure that our currency is no longer the dominant currency. Millions have invaded this country, who knows what's next. With Brandon in office, conservatism is struggling to say the least.
-
Amen. I don't think however that our Republic has time to 'fix' things; it's crumbling at a fast pace. China, Russia and others are gearing up to ensure that our currency is no longer the dominant currency. Millions have invaded this country, who knows what's next. With Brandon in office, conservatism is struggling to say the least.
Half measures in desperation have already proved over and over to be a failure.
We need to stop farting around and build a party around the orthodoxy that is supposed to bind us together.
And that, Conservatism, is the natural enemy of liberalism, because small government and individualism is in Conservatism's very DNA. OF COURSE Conservatives will fight.
-
Half measures in desperation have already proved over and over to be a failure.
We need to stop farting around and build a party around the orthodoxy that is supposed to bind us together.
And that, Conservatism, is the natural enemy of liberalism, because small government and individualism is in Conservatism's very DNA. OF COURSE Conservatives will fight.
You make perfect sense, and I agree, but who is going to lead this new party?? I had given thought that people like Cruz, Hawley, Paul and others should break away and form a conservative party or perhaps join the Constitution Party, but that happening is slim to none.
Maybe it will take the total collapse of the GOP and I don't think that's too far away.
But, perhaps our entire Republic completely crumbling is not too far away. :shrug:
-
You make perfect sense, and I agree, but who is going to lead this new party?? I had given thought that people like Cruz, Hawley, Paul and others should break away and form a conservative party or perhaps join the Constitution Party, but that happening is slim to none.
Maybe it will take the total collapse of the GOP and I don't think that's too far away.
But, perhaps our entire Republic completely crumbling is not too far away. :shrug:
It doesn't have to be a new party.
What would be best is transmitting an orthodoxy to the Republican voters, and getting them to vote their values - their conscience - rather than the absurdity of voting for anything other than the democrat.
There has to be the very same solidarity on the Right that there is on the left. That means NO RINOs. That is FAR more important than keeping the Democrats out of office, because right now, they win anyway, because they have no opposition, and nine times out of ten, RINOs to help advance their agenda.
Liberalism does not win on merit - It has no merit.
Liberalism wins because it has no opposition.
-
That is exactly wrong @DCPatriot , and exactly why the Republican party is so full of RINOs... And that is exactly why the Republican party is not able to fight.
THAT is the problem. And it is not fixed by stacking all your chips on a messiah. What fixes it is very selective voting toward adherence to orthodoxy, from the ground up. PERIOD.
That's the fix, TEA Party style. That is what will build a Conservative political machine that WILL fight.
And that is the ONLY thing. All the rest is bullcrap.
I agree with you @roamer_1 . I was a strong TEA Party participant. But what happened, at least in our chapter, was an influx of other groups and investigations of the leaders from the IRS. So it died. And we were a very small group.
-
We need to stop farting around and build a party around the orthodoxy that is supposed to bind us together.
Who is that "us", and what percent of voters are they?
Starting a third party doesn't solve the real problem, which is a lack of conservative consensus among voters.
-
I agree with you @roamer_1 . I was a strong TEA Party participant. But what happened, at least in our chapter, was an influx of other groups and investigations of the leaders from the IRS. So it died. And we were a very small group.
Sure @berdie ... And a whole lot of players and pretenders too... That is going to happen. We have to keep our eyes on the ball - If someone gets in and proceeds to act against the principles he was elected to defend, or even if he would be merely a dud, either way, vote him back out and vote in someone who WILL toe the line.
We have to stop making it about Democrats.
We have to stop making it about people.
It is about principles, and only about those principles we want pushed forward.
You get MORE of what you vote *FOR*.
-
Who is that "us", and what percent of voters are they?
Starting a third party doesn't solve the real problem, which is a lack of conservative consensus among voters.
Well, for instance, if you can get the Christian Right to vote en bloc, they are the biggest natural voting bloc there is.
There are more Conservatives outside of the Republican party than in it, and that has been true for a long time.
There may be some movement between the parties, and a lot of movement in independents... But the money shot are the disaffected. Especially with Conservatives - They tend to be working class, and entrepreneurs... Getting them to drop everything and take the time to vote is the trick.
The same with Christians. Their focus is on the eternal, not the political. Getting them to vote en masse means you have to walk the walk.. and you have to fight their fight.
The same with Foreign Policy wonks and surely veterans and DEFCons... How many vets are going to turn out for a man that has taken their oath and has been in battle, and earned medals... The answer is ALL of them.
Right now, in all of those factions, many don't turn out, because just like me, they don't want what Republicans are selling, or don't believe they are really going to fight.
And who said anything about another party?
If the Republicans would vote their conscience and hold fast to the principles that bind us, the party could be reformed... As I said, TEA Party style.
Draw the line, hold the line, and don't settle for less. Believe it or not, THAT is Reagan.
-
Well, for instance, if you can get the Christian Right to vote en bloc, they are the biggest natural voting bloc there is.
There are more Conservatives outside of the Republican party than in it, and that has been true for a long time.
There may be some movement between the parties, and a lot of movement in independents... But the money shot are the disaffected. Especially with Conservatives - They tend to be working class, and entrepreneurs... Getting them to drop everything and take the time to vote is the trick.
The same with Christians. Their focus is on the eternal, not the political. Getting them to vote en masse means you have to walk the walk.. and you have to fight their fight.
The same with Foreign Policy wonks and surely veterans and DEFCons... How many vets are going to turn out for a man that has taken their oath and has been in battle, and earned medals... The answer is ALL of them.
Right now, in all of those factions, many don't turn out, because just like me, they don't want what Republicans are selling, or don't believe they are really going to fight.
And who said anything about another party?
If the Republicans would vote their conscience and hold fast to the principles that bind us, the party could be reformed... As I said, TEA Party style.
I think you are greatly overestimating the degree of agreement among self-described "conservatives", and I also think most of them still vote GOP - at least in the primaries.
-
I think you are greatly overestimating the degree of agreement among self-described "conservatives", and I also think most of them still vote GOP - at least in the primaries.
Christians conservatives also disagree significantly.
-
I think you are greatly overestimating the degree of agreement among self-described "conservatives", and I also think most of them still vote GOP - at least in the primaries.
Perhaps. But I don't know any. ALL of my inner circle friends, all were stout conservative Republicans... To a man, none of us are Republicans now. Not a one. and none that I know voted for Tumpy... Or Romulus, Or McCain't.
None.
Now I realize I am hard right. I would reckon that I am further to the right than many on this board... But a ton of folks like me have fallen off the right side while the party moved left. More than you know.
You don't fight the left by moving to the left. You fight the left by moving to the Right.
-
Perhaps. But I don't know any. ALL of my inner circle friends, all were stout conservative Republicans... To a man, none of us are Republicans now. Not a one. and none that I know voted for Tumpy... Or Romulus, Or McCain't.
And yet...there were a bunch of people who hadn't voted before who only voted because it was Trump, and they'll stop voting once he's gone. That's kind of my point. There are all sorts of people who have the view of "voting is a waste of time", but just because they agree on that general point doesn't mean they actually share the same views.
Now I realize I am hard right. I would reckon that I am further to the right than many on this board... But a ton of folks like me have fallen off the right side while the party moved left. More than you know. You don't fight the left by moving to the left. You fight the left by moving to the Right.
And how many people in the middle do you lose when you move further to the right? I mean, just taking the basic concept of supply and demand, you'd think there'd be plenty of conservative candidates moving right to gain all those voters like you, and they'd be winning elections big-time because they'd be tapping into this huge new constituency. But that just isn't happening. Senate is tougher, but House races are small/local enough that someone who truly tapped into a major constituency should be winning.
My thought is this -- if we go too far right from the start, we're going to scare off too many people and just never get elected. So what we need are candidates who are conservative, but not so far right that they're going to scare people off. Then when those candidates have some success, that starts to pull more people in a conservative direction, and we can gradually shift the electorate. I just don't see any other way to do that, because the hard core types almost never run and win.
-
And yet...there were a bunch of people who hadn't voted before who only voted because it was Trump, and they'll stop voting once he's gone. That's kind of my point. There are all sorts of people who have the view of "voting is a waste of time", but just because they agree on that general point doesn't mean they actually share the same views.
And how many people in the middle do you lose when you move further to the right? I mean, just taking the basic concept of supply and demand, you'd think there'd be plenty of conservative candidates moving right to gain all those voters like you, and they'd be winning elections big-time because they'd be tapping into this huge new constituency. But that just isn't happening. Senate is tougher, but House races are small/local enough that someone who truly tapped into a major constituency should be winning.
My thought is this -- if we go too far right from the start, we're going to scare off too many people and just never get elected. So what we need are candidates who are conservative, but not so far right that they're going to scare people off. Then when those candidates have some success, that starts to pull more people in a conservative direction, and we can gradually shift the electorate. I just don't see any other way to do that, because the hard core types almost never run and win.
@Maj. Bill Martin
EXCELLENT post!
-
And yet...there were a bunch of people who hadn't voted before who only voted because it was Trump, and they'll stop voting once he's gone. That's kind of my point. There are all sorts of people who have the view of "voting is a waste of time", but just because they agree on that general point doesn't mean they actually share the same views.
And how many people in the middle do you lose when you move further to the right? I mean, just taking the basic concept of supply and demand, you'd think there'd be plenty of conservative candidates moving right to gain all those voters like you, and they'd be winning elections big-time because they'd be tapping into this huge new constituency. But that just isn't happening. Senate is tougher, but House races are small/local enough that someone who truly tapped into a major constituency should be winning.
My thought is this -- if we go too far right from the start, we're going to scare off too many people and just never get elected. So what we need are candidates who are conservative, but not so far right that they're going to scare people off. Then when those candidates have some success, that starts to pull more people in a conservative direction, and we can gradually shift the electorate. I just don't see any other way to do that, because the hard core types almost never run and win.
Couldn’t have said it better myself
It reminds me what Rush Limbaugh said years after the Republicans sweep in 1994. They assumed that people just automatically agreed with them on everything.
And that’s probably why Ron DeSantis‘s first election was so close, but his second one was a blowout
-
It doesn't have to be a new party.
What would be best is transmitting an orthodoxy to the Republican voters, and getting them to vote their values - their conscience - rather than the absurdity of voting for anything other than the democrat.
There has to be the very same solidarity on the Right that there is on the left. That means NO RINOs. That is FAR more important than keeping the Democrats out of office, because right now, they win anyway, because they have no opposition, and nine times out of ten, RINOs to help advance their agenda.
Liberalism does not win on merit - It has no merit.
Liberalism wins because it has no opposition.
Question: Who determines who is a RINO or not? I think we need to stop playing these RINO games cause in reality we don't have the numbers to carry and candidate across the finish line. The reality is this we are not going to get a Ted Cruz type of person elected in the state of Illinois. , So, therefore, a moderate GOP is desired over a Dem.
But if you want to continue to play RINO hunting games go right ahead. Just enjoy losing elections while waiting for the pure "conservative". Now Trump I personally think that Trump is truly a RINO. I just don't buy his sudden conversion.
-
Question: Who determines who is a RINO or not? I think we need to stop playing these RINO games cause in reality we don't have the numbers to carry and candidate across the finish line. The reality is this we are not going to get a Ted Cruz type of person elected in the state of Illinois. , So, therefore, a moderate GOP is desired over a Dem.
But if you want to continue to play RINO hunting games go right ahead. Just enjoy losing elections while waiting for the pure "conservative". Now Trump I personally think that Trump is truly a RINO. I just don't buy his sudden conversion.
I don't know WHO determines who is a RINO @kevindavis007 but I know how I conclude someone is in that category.
If he votes with the opposition party more than he does with his own party on CONSERVATIVE legislation he is a RINO.
-
And yet...there were a bunch of people who hadn't voted before who only voted because it was Trump, and they'll stop voting once he's gone. That's kind of my point. There are all sorts of people who have the view of "voting is a waste of time", but just because they agree on that general point doesn't mean they actually share the same views.
But not enough. No where NEAR enough. Sacrifice Conservative solidarity for nothing but a dentyne schwing and a twenty-trillion dollar bill...A base so poor they barely dragged his ass across the finish line against the most hated woman there is... And then LOST to a dingbat campaigning in a basement.
And how many people in the middle do you lose when you move further to the right?
The only times we win at all is from the Right.
I mean, just taking the basic concept of supply and demand, you'd think there'd be plenty of conservative candidates moving right to gain all those voters like you, and they'd be winning elections big-time because they'd be tapping into this huge new constituency. But that just isn't happening.
SURE it is. every bloody election they ALL move right. They ALL try to don the Conservative mantle. Which is why Conservatives traditionally vote record over promises from the stump.
My thought is this -- if we go too far right from the start, we're going to scare off too many people and just never get elected. So what we need are candidates who are conservative, but not so far right that they're going to scare people off. Then when those candidates have some success, that starts to pull more people in a conservative direction, and we can gradually shift the electorate. I just don't see any other way to do that, because the hard core types almost never run and win.
Every major success for Republicans came from the Right. NOT the middle. Bush won from the middle, barely. Tumpy won from the left, barely. BOTH disguised as, and promising, from the RIGHT. Both unsuccessful regimes.
The only real advances came from the Right. Reagan, the 94 Congress, the TEA Party... ALL were crazy popular, all were grassroots, all overturned government from dog catcher all the way up.
The math ain't that hard. Conservatism works every time it's tried.
-
Question: Who determines who is a RINO or not? I think we need to stop playing these RINO games cause in reality we don't have the numbers to carry and candidate across the finish line. The reality is this we are not going to get a Ted Cruz type of person elected in the state of Illinois. , So, therefore, a moderate GOP is desired over a Dem.
And now, a liberal in sheep's clothing walks the halls of power as a Republican, and WILL interfere every time meaningful legislation arises. One or two, and you might be right, But not now, when you can't vote your way out of a wet paper bag in either house.
Liberals are winning because they have no opposition. That opposition is supposed to be y'all.
But if you want to continue to play RINO hunting games go right ahead. Just enjoy losing elections while waiting for the pure "conservative". Now Trump I personally think that Trump is truly a RINO. I just don't buy his sudden conversion.
Ah, the purity hack. In the mean time, y'all can't raise a damn issue without stepping on yourselves because of the 'impure'. Y'all are of no effect. EVERY advancement has come from the RIGHT, with few exceptions.
-
But not enough. No where NEAR enough. Sacrifice Conservative solidarity for nothing but a dentyne schwing and a twenty-trillion dollar bill...A base so poor they barely dragged his ass across the finish line against the most hated woman there is... And then LOST to a dingbat campaigning in a basement.
The only times we win at all is from the Right.
SURE it is. every bloody election they ALL move right. They ALL try to don the Conservative mantle. Which is why Conservatives traditionally vote record over promises from the stump.
Every major success for Republicans came from the Right. NOT the middle. Bush won from the middle, barely. Tumpy won from the left, barely. BOTH disguised as, and promising, from the RIGHT. Both unsuccessful regimes.
The only real advances came from the Right. Reagan, the 94 Congress, the TEA Party... ALL were crazy popular, all were grassroots, all overturned government from dog catcher all the way up.
The math ain't that hard. Conservatism works every time it's tried.
Wrong... Do you know how Reagan won? He won caused he appealed to the middle. The 94 elections worked cause a lot of Senate candidates appealed to the middle to WIN STATEWIDE! As for the Tea Party, I don't call winning the House a success. A lot of Tea Party candidates lost STATEWIDE races cause they were batsh*t crazy! There was no in heck that Tea Party candidates where going to win in Blue states.
I'm sorry that is the truth.
-
And now, a liberal in sheep's clothing walks the halls of power as a Republican, and WILL interfere every time meaningful legislation arises. One or two, and you might be right, But not now, when you can't vote your way out of a wet paper bag in either house.
Liberals are winning because they have no opposition. That opposition is supposed to be y'all.
Ah, the purity hack. In the mean time, y'all can't raise a damn issue without stepping on yourselves because of the 'impure'. Y'all are of no effect. EVERY advancement has come from the RIGHT, with few exceptions.
Then fine, then keep on enjoying losing elections.
-
Wrong... Do you know how Reagan won? He won caused he appealed to the middle.
The awakening of Conservatism in modern times?
From the MIDDLE? Nah. Reagan came from the RIGHT, straight out of the Right wing. And his appeal was to the Right... Particularly the Christian Right, rising up a force never reckoned before... and the key to the Southern Strategy. That the middle came along is incidental.
The 94 elections worked cause a lot of Senate candidates appealed to the middle to WIN STATEWIDE!
The contract with America appealed to the right, not the middle. And its aim was directly toward issues of the right.
As for the Tea Party, I don't call winning the House a success. A lot of Tea Party candidates lost STATEWIDE races cause they were batsh*t crazy!
Still they overturned city, county, and state governments in record numbers.
There was no in heck that Tea Party candidates where going to win in Blue states.
Nothing from the right is going to win blue states. But winning blue states by turning blue is no win at all.
-
Then fine, then keep on enjoying losing elections.
LOSING elections? No one does that better than the moderate right wing - And they're in power. No excuse, with MurderTurdle and the RNC trying to get them in...
-
LOSING elections? No one does that better than the moderate right wing - And they're in power. No excuse, with MurderTurdle and the RNC trying to get them in...
888high58888
-
But not enough. No where NEAR enough. Sacrifice Conservative solidarity ...
@roamer_1
ROFLMAO!
Don't let ANYONE tell you that you don't have a sense of humor!
-
@roamer_1
ROFLMAO!
Don't let ANYONE tell you that you don't have a sense of humor!
It is absolutely true @sneakypete .
-
The awakening of Conservatism in modern times?
From the MIDDLE? Nah. Reagan came from the RIGHT, straight out of the Right wing. And his appeal was to the Right... Particularly the Christian Right, rising up a force never reckoned before... and the key to the Southern Strategy. That the middle came along is incidental.
The contract with America appealed to the right, not the middle. And its aim was directly toward issues of the right.
Still they overturned city, county, and state governments in record numbers.
Nothing from the right is going to win blue states. But winning blue states by turning blue is no win at all.
@roamer_1
I am a big fan of Reagan,as well as Barry Goldwater.
Reagan won because he was such a likable guy. A huge part of that was he was able to appear to be genuinely amused at the attacks the left put on him,and would laugh his was out of the accussation,and then turn that on the Dims.
Goldwater was unsuccessful because of the times he was running. The voting public was afraid of a candidate that seemed humorless and who was so intense.
ANYBODY that was able to vote that DIDN'T vote for Goldwater was/is a freaking fool.
Which just means there are a lot of fools voting.
What makes this even worse today is the left virtually OWNS the broadcast and print media. When ANY party has control over the issues and the dialogue,they are virtually impossible to beat using traditional candidates.
In one respect,Trump WILL win in the long run because history will prove him to have been both right and robbed.
Robbed by both the Dims and the "Miss Manners" alleged Republicans. Not that it will matter by then because America will no longer exist as "America,the land of the free",but in some corporate form with a name like "The North American Economic Zone",and populated by "good little robots" because that WILL be what it will take to get ahead and be successful.
But you "Miss Manners" types just go ahead and keep playing your stupid games if that's what pulls your trigger. After all,"compromise" is for commies,NOT people that demand THEIR version of "perfect conservatism",right?
-
Question: Who determines who is a RINO or not? I think we need to stop playing these RINO games cause in reality we don't have the numbers to carry and candidate across the finish line. The reality is this we are not going to get a Ted Cruz type of person elected in the state of Illinois. , So, therefore, a moderate GOP is desired over a Dem.
But if you want to continue to play RINO hunting games go right ahead. Just enjoy losing elections while waiting for the pure "conservative". Now Trump I personally think that Trump is truly a RINO. I just don't buy his sudden conversion.
@kevindavis007
You are wrong. He is a life-long businessman that primarily dealt and socialized with the uber-wealthy NYC left because that was where the money and the connections were/are,and his job/responsibility to to play kissy-face with them so he would be risking THEIR money,not his in any new investment he was considering.
Now he is old and is looking at how the history books will view him,and his massive ego DEMANDS he go down in history as "The President that saved America",and that this IS his last shot at THAT "Golden Ticket".
The FACT that he and his father BOTH spent the majority of their lives "buddying up" to the international banking set in NYC,and knows all of them personally,which means he also knows a great deal about how they operate and who they operate with,has the Corporate and Banking Czars that basically control our economy having nightmares about federal banking probes,insider deals,etc,etc,etc.
THIS is what makes him such a threat to the left,and make no mistake about it,the wealthiest men and women in America ARE hard leftists for everybody BUT themselves. When you reach a certain level of wealth,such as Bill Gates and others at his level,there ARE no rules for all practical purposes. Words like "left" and "right" are meaningless in a "It's all about me,me,ME,DAMMIT!" world,and that IS the world that the uber rich live in.
-
But not enough. No where NEAR enough. Sacrifice Conservative solidarity for nothing but a dentyne schwing and a twenty-trillion dollar bill...A base so poor they barely dragged his ass across the finish line against the most hated woman there is... And then LOST to a dingbat campaigning in a basement.
@roamer_1
Jealousy is never pretty.
-
@roamer_1
I am a big fan of Reagan,as well as Barry Goldwater.
Reagan won because he was such a likable guy. A huge part of that was he was able to appear to be genuinely amused at the attacks the left put on him,and would laugh his was out of the accussation,and then turn that on the Dims.
@sneakypete
Reagan was likeable, sure, but political historians, and Reagan himself attributed his win to the Southern Strategy - Winning the South. And he did that by appealing to Christians specifically, to raise up a political bulwark against declining morals and specifically against abortion - By offering the Social Right (The Christian Right) a seat at the Conservative table, Reagan succeeded where Goldwater failed... And awakened a powerful juggernaut.
Goldwater was unsuccessful because of the times he was running. The voting public was afraid of a candidate that seemed humorless and who was so intense.
Goldwater lost because he didn't have the numbers. Christians provided Reagan those numbers, and guaranteed those numbers to the right, providing Republicans kept Reagan's promise... Which it does no longer. And only a direct inheritor of Reagan can fix that. IOW, the Christians will hear the Reagan/Goldwater wing, as the ones who made the promise, and are the only ones willing to keep the promise.
In one respect,Trump WILL win in the long run because history will prove him to have been both right and robbed.
He was not right. History will not be kind to Tumpy.
Robbed by both the Dims and the "Miss Manners" alleged Republicans. Not that it will matter by then because America will no longer exist as "America,the land of the free",but in some corporate form with a name like "The North American Economic Zone",and populated by "good little robots" because that WILL be what it will take to get ahead and be successful.
But you "Miss Manners" types just go ahead and keep playing your stupid games if that's what pulls your trigger. After all,"compromise" is for commies,NOT people that demand THEIR version of "perfect conservatism",right?
Demanding character and integrity is part and parcel with Conservatism. And it proves true. Tumpy governed as a liberal, using big government and NYC values.
Not a matter of 'perfect' conservatism... He GREW government. He GREW debt. He damaged liberty. That's not conservatism at all.
-
@roamer_1
Jealousy is never pretty.
Again, not jealous in the least. Tumpy has nothing I want.
-
Thing is, Trump is polling way better than you'd expect vs. Biden. Still too close to comfort for my tastes (I'd rather see Desantis but either are better than Biden or any other Democrat).
-
Then fine, then keep on enjoying losing elections.
Electing liberal Republicans who cede all their power over to the GOPe and continue to give Democrats everything they could possibly want is not my idea of 'winning' elections.
-
@roamer_1
Jealousy is never pretty.
Lol
You never disappoint
I figured you’d come up with something like this
-
The awakening of Conservatism in modern times?
From the MIDDLE? Nah. Reagan came from the RIGHT, straight out of the Right wing. And his appeal was to the Right... Particularly the Christian Right, rising up a force never reckoned before... and the key to the Southern Strategy. That the middle came along is incidental.
@roamer_1
ROFLMAO!
The "Right" in the days of Reagan would be called the "Mushy Moderates" of today. People like Barry Goldwater were considered to be radical bomb-throwers. And THIS was back in the day when MOST Americans considered themselves to be conservatives.
Basically,Reagan won because he was a career actor as well as a VERY smart man. He didn't mind playing "the uniformed dummy" under the right circumstances BECAUSE HE WAS PLAYING A ROLE SO HE COULD GET ELECTED.
It was his public persona as well as his controlled temperment,his acting ability,and his wit that got him elected. He came across as a VERY likeable man that the typical teebee viewer could identify with and wanted to be friends with.
Unlike Trump,Reagan had spent his whole career as an actor,and there is probably no better training for a man or woman that decides to enter politics because you are basically "selling your persona" to the voters.
I freely admit that Trump's personality that makes him want to say what he really thinks regardless of the effect it has on Steve and Susie Sixpack hurts him. I just hope that in addition to a LOT of voters being fed up with leftism and things like the flood of illegal aliens taking away their jobs,that they can get past his personality and see that his ego DEMANDING he goes down in the history books as "The man that saved America from Globalism" is enough to overcome their natural prejudices against a man so arrogant and wealthy.
Defeating class warfare with the typical voters IS a "tough hill to climb",though. Even if you KNOW America would be better and safer if you do.
Envy is probably the most powerful negative emotion any of us ever have to deal with,and for the typical working couple struggling to make house,car,and insurance payments in this day of hyper-inflation doesn't make it any easier.
-
Wrong... Do you know how Reagan won? He won caused he appealed to the middle.
Reagan appealed to the middle by offering them Conservatism. He provided them an actual alternative to the liberal bullshit Democrats had been pushing for the last decade and a half - something that Ford, GHW Bush, Dole, etc. did not.
The 94 elections worked cause a lot of Senate candidates appealed to the middle to WIN STATEWIDE!
The '94 elections worked, again because the GOP offered a Conservative alternative to Democrat policies of the last half century. A key proponent of that was Equal Protection (i.e. making members of Congress subject to the same rules and laws affecting everyone else). In a nutshell, the '94 contract with America was a treatise of limitation on the powers of Government. And that in itself appealed to moderates.
The 94 elections worked cause a lot of Senate candidates appealed to the middle to WIN STATEWIDE! As for the Tea Party, I don't call winning the House a success. A lot of Tea Party candidates lost STATEWIDE races cause they were batsh*t crazy! There was no in heck that Tea Party candidates where going to win in Blue states.
The 2010 election gave us Mike Lee in Utah, Nikki Haley and Tim Scott in South Carolina, Scott Brown in Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and Mark Rubio in Florida. The biggest enemy they faced (and continue to face) is the Republican Party.
-
The awakening of Conservatism in modern times?
From the MIDDLE? Nah. Reagan came from the RIGHT, straight out of the Right wing. And his appeal was to the Right... Particularly the Christian Right, rising up a force never reckoned before... and the key to the Southern Strategy. That the middle came along is incidental.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the very person responsible for torpedoing Reagan's 1976 run for President is the exact same person Trump chose to run his campaign in 2016.
-
ROFLMAO!
The "Right" in the days of Reagan would be called the "Mushy Moderates" of today. People like Barry Goldwater were considered to be radical bomb-throwers. And THIS was back in the day when MOST Americans considered themselves to be conservatives.
@sneakypete
The right I am speaking of was the Goldwater wing of the Republican party, as opposed to the moderate wing or the liberal wing...
Now called the Reagan/Goldwater wing, to the degree that it still exists.
Reagan came out of Goldwater (the right wing machine).
Reagan governed California from the right, for two successful terms..
Reagan governed the US from the right, for two successful terms.
There is no question he was Conservative, and shared with Goldwater, deserves to be called the father of modern political Conservatism.
-
@sneakypete
Reagan was likeable, sure, but political historians, and Reagan himself attributed his win to the Southern Strategy - Winning the South. And he did that by appealing to Christians specifically, to raise up a political bulwark against declining morals and specifically against abortion - By offering the Social Right (The Christian Right) a seat at the Conservative table, Reagan succeeded where Goldwater failed... And awakened a powerful juggernaut.
(https://www.270towin.com/historical_maps/1980_large.png)
-
@sneakypete
The right I am speaking of was the Goldwater wing of the Republican party, as opposed to the moderate wing or the liberal wing...
Now called the Reagan/Goldwater wing, to the degree that it still exists.
Reagan came out of Goldwater (the right wing machine).
Reagan governed California from the right, for two successful terms..
Reagan governed the US from the right, for two successful terms.
There is no question he was Conservative, and shared with Goldwater, deserves to be called the father of modern political Conservatism.
:thumbsup:
-
@sneakypete
There is no question he was Conservative, and shared with Goldwater, deserves to be called the father of modern political Conservatism.
If you look at the states won by Reagan that were lost by Goldwater, it went way beyond a successful "southern strategy". Reagan succeeded because he didn't make any enemies unless it was absolutely necessary. That disarmed much of the criticism Democrats had levied against Goldwater as an extremist eager to start wars. It also enabled him to unite the entire GOP behind him, as well as make more conservative Democrats feel included.
"Us v Them" only works if you define the "them" narrowly. If you define it too broadly -- which is one of Trump's key mistakes -- then you alienate the exact people you need to both win and govern effectively. Winning an election doesn't do you a lot of good if you don't have a coalition capable of enacting legislative change. Instead, you'll at best just get Executive Orders on some subjects that can be reversed easily by the next President. With Trump...even if he somehow managed to get re-elected, he's not going to be able to enact his agenda.
-
A RINO is in the eye of the beholder.
Any Republican who thinks for himself will be called a RINO at some point.
-
That is exactly wrong @DCPatriot , and exactly why the Republican party is so full of RINOs... And that is exactly why the Republican party is not able to fight.
THAT is the problem. And it is not fixed by stacking all your chips on a messiah. What fixes it is very selective voting toward adherence to orthodoxy, from the ground up. PERIOD.
That's the fix, TEA Party style. That is what will build a Conservative political machine that WILL fight.
And that is the ONLY thing. All the rest is bullcrap.
You're soooo obtuse when it comes to common sense on this mater.
We don't have the time to "...have it YOUR way" ... your utopian brand of Conservatism.
The Republic DIES within a decade if this controlled demolition is allowed to continue.
If I were Donald Trump, on the very day I'm inaugurated, I'd declare a State of Emergency and invoke Martial Law in Washington, D.C.
I'd have all the dirty SOBs responsible for the past 14 years' destruction arrested in pre-dawn, well-publicized raids. Barack Obama (the precedent is set), Joe Biden, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, John Brennan, Peter Strozk...the Chairpersons of the Boards of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN,
...and that's just before the sun sets on January 20, 2025.
-
Where was Repub fiscal conservatism when Bush '43 and Trump '45 were in the White House?
-
You're soooo obtuse when it comes to common sense on this mater.
We don't have the time to "...have it YOUR way" ... your utopian brand of Conservatism.
The Republic DIES within a decade if this controlled demolition is allowed to continue.
In the last decade, our national debt has increased nearly $15 trillion. Half of that occurred during the four (out of ten) years Trump was in office. Looks like 40% of that "controlled demolition" came under Trump.
If I were Donald Trump, on the very day I'm inaugurated, I'd declare a State of Emergency and invoke Martial Law in Washington, D.C.
I'd have all the dirty SOBs responsible for the past 14 years' destruction arrested in pre-dawn, well-publicized raids. Barack Obama (the precedent is set), Joe Biden, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, John Brennan, Peter Strozk...the Chairpersons of the Boards of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN,
...and that's just before the sun sets on January 20, 2025.
Instead, what you will get is Trump ceding power over to the same Establishment hacks he did before. Comey, Brennan, Strozk - all employed by Donald J. Trump.
Trump had two major accomplishments early in his Presidency - the tax cuts, and the judicial appointments. The first he got by turning it over to Paul Ryan. The second he got by turning it over to Mitch McConnell. You seem to have this unrealistic idea that Trump is a swamp drainer. He's not. Personally, I like the guy very much. I also like his potential for getting things done. Unfortunately, he is woefully naive when it comes to politics, and by his current words and actions, it is clear that he has learned nothing since taking office in 2017.
-
Where was Repub fiscal conservatism when Bush '43 and Trump '45 were in the White House?
In Bush's defense, he did bring the deficit down to $160 billion by 2006.
-
You're soooo obtuse when it comes to common sense on this mater.
We don't have the time to "...have it YOUR way" ... your utopian brand of Conservatism.
The Republic DIES within a decade if this controlled demolition is allowed to continue.
That's just it... We don't have time to do otherwise. Every year y'all go racing after shiny shit is another year lost. And another year that the Republicans are assisting the liberal utopia that is supplanting the libertarian utopia that was this nation's root.
Every year y'all go begging for a messiah and an emperor is another year our liberties are whittled away with no succor.
You can call it 'my brand of utopian conservatism', but it is in fact the conservatism that is natural here since our founding. Conservatism seeks not to build new, it seeks to put things back the way they were, and to secure the blessings of liberty in the only form and function that history will attest and approve. Deny that at our peril.
If I were Donald Trump, on the very day I'm inaugurated, I'd declare a State of Emergency and invoke Martial Law in Washington, D.C.
I'd have all the dirty SOBs responsible for the past 14 years' destruction arrested in pre-dawn, well-publicized raids. Barack Obama (the precedent is set), Joe Biden, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, John Brennan, Peter Strozk...the Chairpersons of the Boards of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN,
...and that's just before the sun sets on January 20, 2025.
@DCPatriot
Yeah. You want a messiah. An emperor. No different than the liberals in that, sorry to say.
And it's a pipe dream. That ain't how it works. One man ain't gonna change jack shit. As proven already. You should know that by now.
No one is changing anything without a ground-up political machine behind him. Not fans. Not voters. A political mechanism. Die-hard and direct. That requires a grassroots, ground up, political body dedicated to one set of principles that span a generation.
That is the ONLY thing that will do anything.
Or you can continue to shoot blanks, hire RINOs, and be happy with the candy thrown from the clown at the head of the parade, while the country continues to go down in flames.
You are providing *NO* opposition. They are running you over roughshod.
This hero bullshit is useless.
-
If you look at the states won by Reagan that were lost by Goldwater, it went way beyond a successful "southern strategy". Reagan succeeded because he didn't make any enemies unless it was absolutely necessary. That disarmed much of the criticism Democrats had levied against Goldwater as an extremist eager to start wars. It also enabled him to unite the entire GOP behind him, as well as make more conservative Democrats feel included.
"Us v Them" only works if you define the "them" narrowly. If you define it too broadly -- which is one of Trump's key mistakes -- then you alienate the exact people you need to both win and govern effectively. Winning an election doesn't do you a lot of good if you don't have a coalition capable of enacting legislative change. Instead, you'll at best just get Executive Orders on some subjects that can be reversed easily by the next President. With Trump...even if he somehow managed to get re-elected, he's not going to be able to enact his agenda.
That is somewhat right... But not altogether. The 'hard fight, and we won't let you take it back' speech was not pointed at Democrats - That was pointed right at the moderate wing, and the big money liberal donors that had controlled the party.
But as you said, there was compromise, and we all have to get along, which is why GHWB was the VP... Right out of the moderate neocon wing. Regan said alright, but we get to drive.
Tumpy pisses everybody off. I guarantee he will just get hemmed in again... And I guarantee he will sign the checks, just as he did the last time... In effect, growing government again by leaps and bounds... And the swamp will get deeper... As already proven.
-
If I were Donald Trump, on the very day I'm inaugurated, I'd declare a State of Emergency and invoke Martial Law in Washington, D.C.. I'd have all the dirty SOBs responsible for the past 14 years' destruction arrested in pre-dawn, well-publicized raids. Barack Obama (the precedent is set), Joe Biden, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, John Brennan, Peter Strozk...the Chairpersons of the Boards of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN,
Maybe you intended to insert a sarcasm tag, because otherwise, that is a completely batshit crazy idea. Exactly where does the Constitution authorize that, and in what universe would you expect any responsible officers in the military to carry out such a clearly unconstitutional order? As much as I can't stand the Democrats, Trump would deserve an instant bullet in the head if he tried to do that.
What he'd likely get instead is arrested by the very military he just ordered to do that, and be impeached, convicted, and removed from office within a week. Max. Fortunately, he'd likely have enough sane people around him to slap him silly if he ever attempted to do such a thing.
[/quote]
-
Maybe you intended to insert a sarcasm tag, because otherwise, that is a completely batshit crazy idea. Exactly where does the Constitution authorize that, and in what universe would you expect any responsible officers in the military to carry out such a clearly unconstitutional order? As much as I can't stand the Democrats, Trump would deserve an instant bullet in the head if he tried to do that.
What he'd likely get instead is arrested by the very military he just ordered to do that, and be impeached, convicted, and removed from office within a week. Max. Fortunately, he'd likely have enough sane people around him to slap him silly if he ever attempted to do such a thing.
Mike Lindell and Gen Flynn wanted Trump to do something like that. Luckily, to his credit, Trump isn't that crazy.
-
Maybe you intended to insert a sarcasm tag, because otherwise, that is a completely batshit crazy idea. Exactly where does the Constitution authorize that, and in what universe would you expect any responsible officers in the military to carry out such a clearly unconstitutional order? As much as I can't stand the Democrats, Trump would deserve an instant bullet in the head if he tried to do that.
What he'd likely get instead is arrested by the very military he just ordered to do that, and be impeached, convicted, and removed from office within a week. Max. Fortunately, he'd likely have enough sane people around him to slap him silly if he ever attempted to do such a thing.
They would scream and holler if Hillary did that had she won in 2016
Proving my point once again that the MAGAs aren’t interested in controlling and reducing the size of the government. What they want is “their” dictatorship
-
Mike Lindell and Gen Flynn wanted Trump to do something like that. Luckily, to his credit, Trump isn't that crazy.
Lindell I can excuse because, well, I think he fried his brain at some point. But there isn't any excuse for Flynn's nutbaggery.
-
Question: Who determines who is a RINO or not? I think we need to stop playing these RINO games cause in reality we don't have the numbers to carry and candidate across the finish line. The reality is this we are not going to get a Ted Cruz type of person elected in the state of Illinois. , So, therefore, a moderate GOP is desired over a Dem.
But if you want to continue to play RINO hunting games go right ahead. Just enjoy losing elections while waiting for the pure "conservative". Now Trump I personally think that Trump is truly a RINO. I just don't buy his sudden conversion.
I'm with Justice Potter Stewart on this one. It's difficult to define, but I know it when I see it.
Essentially, it is one who departs from the stated aims of the Republican Party.
But then, that's most of the GOP at one point or another.
-
The term 'Republican' is now synonymous with 'Democrat-Lite'. And by that definition, Conservatives have become 'Republican in name only'.
-
Proving my point once again that the MAGAs aren’t interested in controlling and reducing the size of the government. What they want is “their” dictatorship
Moronic; simply moronic.
-
Moronic; simply moronic.
But spot on
But, I’ll give you an opportunity to show me were I’m wrong. That I’m being unfair to the MAGAs in my assessment of them
Do you agree with DC’s “remedies?”
Do you agree with people like Flynn who stated Trump should declare Martial Law as a result of the 2020 election results?
Really, I see nothing from Trump or his MAGAs about reducing the size of the government.
-
But spot on
Idiotic.
-
But spot on
But, I’ll give you an opportunity to show me were I’m wrong.
Good luck with that. I've been waiting since 2016.
-
Idiotic.
Then prove it.
-
Good luck with that. I've been waiting since 2016.
You’re more patient than I am. I usually give up after asking her the third time and not getting an answer.
I’m not claiming that everybody who votes for Donald Trump takes these positions. That’s a broad brush.
But when you talk about declaring martial law and arresting people, especially as a President, you better have a damn good reason besides hurt feelings otherwise the public backlash will be very great
Fortunately, Donald Trump knew better than to attempt that route in 2020. It would set a very bad precedent
-
You’re more patient than I am. I usually give up after asking her the third time and not getting an answer.
By the time I stumble onto your :bs:. I have already answered --- beyond your level of understanding ------ your "gotcha now" question.
It is not my job to keep you entertained or informed. Neither is is my responsibility to follow you around making sure you're receiving enough attention.
I suggest you get over yourself.
-
Moronic; simply moronic.
LOL! @Maj. Bill Martin I believe said I lacked a sarcasm tag.
Of course it would never happen. I said it should happen and if I were POTUS it damned well WOULD happen.
Execute them all publicly...impeach me...then let history judge/redeem me.
My face would be on Rushmore in 50 years' time.
-
By the time I stumble onto your :bs:. I have already answered --- beyond your level of understanding ------ your "gotcha now" question.
It is not my job to keep you entertained or informed. Neither is is my responsibility to follow you around making sure you're receiving enough attention.
I suggest you get over yourself.
I love the “I already answered” non answer
Oh well. As per your history, I didn’t believe that I was going to get an answer.
This hasn’t been just my experience but other posters here.
But this is a pattern for you.
-
LOL! @Maj. Bill Martin I believe said I lacked a sarcasm tag.
Of course it would never happen. I said it should happen and if I were POTUS it damned well WOULD happen.
Execute them all publicly...impeach me...then let history judge/redeem me.
My face would be on Rushmore in 50 years' time.
I'm still waiting for the baptism replay @DCPatriot 888blackhat
-
I love the “I already answered” non answer
Oh well. As per your history, I didn’t believe that I was going to get an answer.
This hasn’t been just my experience but other posters here.
Get over yourself.
-
Get over yourself.
Predictable pattern
In a debate last year, regarding Donald Trump’s issue on the debt, I asked if you had a problem with him adding nearly $8 trillion on the debt in his short 4 years on his watch….you didn’t answer.
You posted a tweet from Donald Trump, claiming Charlie Crist had good numbers. When another poster asked you what those good numbers were… You didn’t answer
Recently, I gave you many of Donald Trump’s past and present positions that are to the left of center. I gave you the courtesy of answering if you also shared those positions… You didn’t answer.
And now this one. They were Trump backers who did suggest he declare martial law after the 2020 election. I asked if you agreed with that… You didn’t answer.
You made a claim that Ron DeSantis was crying because Donald Trump was being mean to him. One another poster asked you when that happened… You didn’t answer
See the pattern?
And there’s several others that I’ve seen. Your tactic is to make that person the issue, tell them the wrong, and then storm off and blame them for your refusal or inability to answer the question
-
Predictable pattern
In a debate last year, regarding Donald Trump’s issue on the debt, I asked if you had a problem with him adding nearly $8 trillion on a debt in his short for years on his watch….you didn’t answer.
You posted a tweet from Donald Trump, claiming Charlie Crist had good numbers. When another poster asked you what those good numbers were… You didn’t answer
Recently, I gave you many of Donald Trump’s past and present positions that are to the left of center. I gave you the courtesy of answering if you also shared those positions… You didn’t answer.
And now this one. They were Trump backers who did suggest he declare martial law after the 2020 election. I asked if you agreed with that… You didn’t answer.
And there’s several others that I’ve seen. Your tactic is to make that person the issue, tell them the wrong, and then storm off and blame them for your refusal or inability to answer the question
Oh, my. I have a stalker. 000hehehehe
-
I'm still waiting for the baptism replay @DCPatriot 888blackhat
:silly:
LOL! The 'victims' have changed over the years!
-
:silly:
LOL! The 'victims' have changed over the years!
True dat! 88devil
-
LOL! @Maj. Bill Martin I believe said I lacked a sarcasm tag.
Of course it would never happen. I said it should happen and if I were POTUS it damned well WOULD happen.
Execute them all publicly...impeach me...then let history judge/redeem me.
My face would be on Rushmore in 50 years' time.
Biden will be represented in stone in the Black Hills, eventually. Right behind Crazy Horse.
-
Maybe you intended to insert a sarcasm tag, because otherwise, that is a completely batshit crazy idea. Exactly where does the Constitution authorize that, and in what universe would you expect any responsible officers in the military to carry out such a clearly unconstitutional order? As much as I can't stand the Democrats, Trump would deserve an instant bullet in the head if he tried to do that.
What he'd likely get instead is arrested by the very military he just ordered to do that, and be impeached, convicted, and removed from office within a week. Max. Fortunately, he'd likely have enough sane people around him to slap him silly if he ever attempted to do such a thing.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Amazing,ain't it?
I am in complete agreement with every word in your post above.
-
I am almost to the point where I will refuse to even open these threads because I already know how the discussion will be posed.
Poster 1:"I didn't say that!"
Poster 2: "Did,too!"
Poster 1: "You are a doody-head!"
Poster 2: "No,YOU are the doody-head!"
Etc,etc,etc.
-
Biden will be represented in stone in the Black Hills, eventually. Right behind Crazy Horse.
Sniffing his hair... :whistle:
-
I am almost to the point where I will refuse to even open these threads because I already know how the discussion will be posed.
Poster 1:"I didn't say that!"
Poster 2: "Did,too!"
Poster 1: "You are a doody-head!"
Poster 2: "No,YOU are the doody-head!"
Etc,etc,etc.
You mean like claiming opposition to Trump is because he’s “orange, rude, and rich?” wink777
-
You mean like claiming opposition to Trump is because he’s “orange, rude, and rich?” wink777
@LMAO
Class warfare and jealousy will NEVER end for some people.
-
snip...
Yeah. You want a messiah. An emperor. No different than the liberals in that, sorry to say.
And it's a pipe dream. That ain't how it works. One man ain't gonna change jack shit. As proven already. You should know that by now.
...snip
We've been ruled by EXECUTIVE ORDERS ...how long now?
Some of us have been talking to one another since Monica, Elian and Schiavo.
I don't recall Clinton using them to bypass Congress and essentially the Constitution or Separation of Powers. Do you?
...other than their refusing to even vote on a Budget and run the country on 'Continuing Resolutions'. LOL!
We're in very dangerous times.
-
I love the “I already answered” non answer
Oh well. As per your history, I didn’t believe that I was going to get an answer.
This hasn’t been just my experience but other posters here.
But this is a pattern for you.
What once were vices are now reflexes.
-
LOL! @
Of course it would never happen. I said it should happen and if I were POTUS it damned well WOULD happen.
1) No, it should not happen, and
2) No, it would not happen even if you gave the order because the order wouldn't be obeyed.
My face would be on Rushmore in 50 years' time.
No, you'd just be the answer to a trivia question, and equally consequential.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
Amazing,ain't it?
I am in complete agreement with every word in your post above.
:beer:
-
Oh, my. I have a stalker. 000hehehehe
How the hell is one a stalker on an open political forum were posting histories are out there for all to see?
Bizzarre
-
We've been ruled by EXECUTIVE ORDERS ...how long now?
Some of us have been talking to one another since Monica, Elian and Schiavo.
I don't recall Clinton using them to bypass Congress and essentially the Constitution or Separation of Powers. Do you?
...other than their refusing to even vote on a Budget and run the country on 'Continuing Resolutions'. LOL!
We're in very dangerous times.
Executive Orders have been around for a long time, but I don't think a lot of people quite understand what they are. They are orders the President gives to Executive Branch employees, but they are not enforceable against private citizens.
The courts also struck some down during the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations, so they aren't as all-powerful as you are insinuating.
-
We've been ruled by EXECUTIVE ORDERS ...how long now?
Some of us have been talking to one another since Monica, Elian and Schiavo.
I don't recall Clinton using them to bypass Congress and essentially the Constitution or Separation of Powers. Do you?
...other than their refusing to even vote on a Budget and run the country on 'Continuing Resolutions'. LOL!
We're in very dangerous times.
That is a big part of the problem @DCPatriot ... And the whip-saw effect that comes with it. There is no stability in the change between Tumpy and Bidet... The up-ending of everything every time there is a regime change is almost as bad as the rest of the stupid sh*t they do.
-
That is a big part of the problem @DCPatriot ... And the whip-saw effect that comes with it. There is no stability in the change between Tumpy and Bidet... The up-ending of everything every time there is a regime change is almost as bad as the rest of the stupid sh*t they do.
@roamer_1
Cheer up,JEB is running,so you can support him. Won't be the same without his mama pulling the strings,but it will still be more to your liking.
-
@roamer_1
Cheer up,JEB is running,so you can support him. Won't be the same without his mama pulling the strings,but it will still be more to your liking.
Yeah... bullshit, and you know it.
-
Yeah... bullshit, and you know it.
@roamer_1
No,I don't. JEB doesn't rock any boats,is quiet and polite and likely to get a lot of moderate Dim votes.
Seems to a perfect description of who you would vote for. All he has to do is lie to you and tell you he is going to cut taxes,and you are THERE.
-
@roamer_1
No,I don't. JEB doesn't rock any boats,is quiet and polite and likely to get a lot of moderate Dim votes.
Seems to a perfect description of who you would vote for. All he has to do is lie to you and tell you he is going to cut taxes,and you are THERE.
When offered JEB, my choice was Cruz.
I would not vote for Tumpy.
I would not vote for Romulus.
I would not vote for McAin't.
WTF makes you think I would vote for JEB! ?
-
@roamer_1
No,I don't. JEB doesn't rock any boats,is quiet and polite and likely to get a lot of moderate Dim votes.
Seems to a perfect description of who you would vote for. All he has to do is lie to you and tell you he is going to cut taxes,and you are THERE.
Well, if your politics are consistent, you must be really upset with Donald Trump tapping a former Jeb Bush campaign manager for his 2024 run. Right?
Or is that different this time?
-
@roamer_1
No,I don't. JEB doesn't rock any boats,is quiet and polite and likely to get a lot of moderate Dim votes.
Seems to a perfect description of who you would vote for. All he has to do is lie to you and tell you he is going to cut taxes,and you are THERE.
I know most people hate lawyers, but there is a reason so many politicians are lawyers. It is both groups know that many times it is as much about how you say something, as it is what you are saying. A good lawyer standing in front of a jury knows how to frame his case and facts in a way that appeals to as many jurors as possible. Another lawyer, with the exact same facts, may be much less persuasive because of how he makes the case to the jury. I've had/seen over 100 trials myself, and the difference between someone who is really good at persuading people, and someone who isn't, is staggering. And again, it's with the same facts.
The point of this is that you can have two politicians advancing the exact same policies -- literally no different at all in substance. But if one of them knows how to present those policies in a way that appeals to a larger number of people, that politician is going to be more successful at getting those ideas actually implemented. They're both sticking to their guns -- it's just that one of them is much, much better at selling it to more people.
I'm saying this because a lot of Trump supporters characterize criticism of him by accusing the critics of wanting Democrats/RINOs. But that's not the point at all. We want a lot of the exact same policies -- secure border, positive business environment, etc.. We just want them being pushed by someone who knows how to convince people to support those ideas so they actually get enacted into law.
Trump just needlessly pisses off too many people he would need to actually get things done versus just talking about them.
-
LMAO opines:
"But when you talk about declaring martial law and arresting people, especially as a President, you better have a damn good reason besides hurt feelings otherwise the public backlash will be very great"
Ahem.
Ask the prisoners holed up in the DC jail about that.
-
I know most people hate lawyers, but there is a reason so many politicians are lawyers. It is both groups know that many times it is as much about how you say something, as it is what you are saying. A good lawyer standing in front of a jury knows how to frame his case and facts in a way that appeals to as many jurors as possible. Another lawyer, with the exact same facts, may be much less persuasive because of how he makes the case to the jury. I've had/seen over 100 trials myself, and the difference between someone who is really good at persuading people, and someone who isn't, is staggering. And again, it's with the same facts.
The point of this is that you can have two politicians advancing the exact same policies -- literally no different at all in substance. But if one of them knows how to present those policies in a way that appeals to a larger number of people, that politician is going to be more successful at getting those ideas actually implemented. They're both sticking to their guns -- it's just that one of them is much, much better at selling it to more people.
I'm saying this because a lot of Trump supporters characterize criticism of him by accusing the critics of wanting Democrats/RINOs. But that's not the point at all. We want a lot of the exact same policies -- secure border, positive business environment, etc.. We just want them being pushed by someone who knows how to convince people to support those ideas so they actually get enacted into law.
Trump just needlessly pisses off too many people he would need to actually get things done versus just talking about them.
:thumbsup:
-
LMAO opines:
"But when you talk about declaring martial law and arresting people, especially as a President, you better have a damn good reason besides hurt feelings otherwise the public backlash will be very great"
Ahem.
Ask the prisoners holed up in the DC jail about that.
Well, somebody encouraged all those people to walk right into the trap the Democrats had set for them. Too bad for them that they listened to him, eh?
And I'm not talking about the specifics of the speech he gave that afternoon. The fuse was already lit by that point.
-
Well, if your politics are consistent, you must be really upset with Donald Trump tapping a former Jeb Bush campaign manager for his 2024 run. Right?
Or is that different this time?
@LMAO
You are the one that gets all pissy about Trum,bubba.
-
I know most people hate lawyers, but there is a reason so many politicians are lawyers. It is both groups know that many times it is as much about how you say something, as it is what you are saying. A good lawyer standing in front of a jury knows how to frame his case and facts in a way that appeals to as many jurors as possible. Another lawyer, with the exact same facts, may be much less persuasive because of how he makes the case to the jury. I've had/seen over 100 trials myself, and the difference between someone who is really good at persuading people, and someone who isn't, is staggering. And again, it's with the same facts.
The point of this is that you can have two politicians advancing the exact same policies -- literally no different at all in substance. But if one of them knows how to present those policies in a way that appeals to a larger number of people, that politician is going to be more successful at getting those ideas actually implemented. They're both sticking to their guns -- it's just that one of them is much, much better at selling it to more people.
I'm saying this because a lot of Trump supporters characterize criticism of him by accusing the critics of wanting Democrats/RINOs. But that's not the point at all. We want a lot of the exact same policies -- secure border, positive business environment, etc.. We just want them being pushed by someone who knows how to convince people to support those ideas so they actually get enacted into law.
Trump just needlessly pisses off too many people he would need to actually get things done versus just talking about them.
@Maj. Bill Martin
I agree with almost all of what you write about,TO A DEGREE.
That "degree" is when people start clamoring for "more of the same causin weeze needs a moderate candidate!"
*I* do NOT want a "moderate candidate that will appeal to moderates. I want a freaking bomb-thrower that will shake things up and encourage people to vote most of those career political bastards out of office.
Vote for "More of the same",and you will GET "More of the same".
-
When offered JEB, my choice was Cruz.
I would not vote for Tumpy.
I would not vote for Romulus.
I would not vote for McAin't.
WTF makes you think I would vote for JEB! ?
@roamer_1
He's polite,not rude,and he will be happy to tell you ALL the lies you want to hear.
-
That "degree" is when people start clamoring for "more of the same causin weeze needs a moderate candidate!"
*I* do NOT want a "moderate candidate that will appeal to moderates. I want a freaking bomb-thrower that will shake things up and encourage people to vote most of those career political bastards out of office.
Vote for "More of the same",and you will GET "More of the same".
That ain't what I said, @sneakypete
-
@roamer_1
He's polite,not rude,and he will be happy to tell you ALL the lies you want to hear.
Yeah, alright... But he's big government, which means he is far more tolerable to you than he is to me.
-
@LMAO
You are the one that gets all pissy about Trum,bubba.
It’s you that keeps bringing up Jeb and claiming folks here want him as the candidate.
But your boy is tied closer to Jeb than anyone here
-
It’s you that keeps bringing up Jeb and claiming folks here want him as the candidate.
But your boy is tied closer to Jeb than anyone here
Jeb being a former Florida governor himself with a rolodex of $$$ names and the Bush family brand...of course Ron DeSantis is going to get cozy about this time. wink777
-
Jeb being a former Florida governor himself with a rolodex of $$$ names and the Bush family brand...of course Ron DeSantis is going to get cozy about this time. wink777
Where's the proof that DeSantis and Jeb! or the Bush family are cozy??
DeSantis is a conservative - Jeb! was part of a dynasty where actions of his great grandpappy and grandpappy were questionable. Bush Sr., drafted NAFTA, 'W' 2nd term was a liberal disaster.
-
Jeb being a former Florida governor himself with a rolodex of $$$ names and the Bush family brand...of course Ron DeSantis is going to get cozy about this time. wink777
I personally don’t believe Trump aligning himself with a Jeb Bush campaign manager is that big of a deal
But you guys make a big deal out of everyone else’s associates. Maybe you don’t. But a few of your comrades do.
-
I personally don’t believe Trump aligning himself with a Jeb Bush campaign manager is that big of a deal
But you guys make a big deal out of everyone else’s associates. Maybe you don’t. But a few of your comrades do.
:yowsa:
-
It’s you that keeps bringing up Jeb and claiming folks here want him as the candidate.
But your boy is tied closer to Jeb than anyone here
You wish.
Rude Orange Man scares the hell out of you,and those like you who value decorum above all.