The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: andy58-in-nh on October 04, 2015, 03:46:12 pm
-
I'm a Tea Partier. I detest Obama and the Progressive hoard that has Washington, DC and large portions of America in a death grip. So why don't I like Donald Trump?
Honestly, sometimes I wonder what the hell is wrong with me these days. Why can't I get on the bandwagon along with so many others with whom I agree about most everything?
We've got a President who is slowly turning America's economy into that of a Third World nation, not by accident, but by design. Under his malign domestic stewardship, nearly 95 million otherwise able-bodied adults are no longer in the work force, many having lost hope, and many others having by now availed themselves of destructively generous welfare and disability benefits, provided by Uncle Sam via a shrinking base of struggling taxpayers.
Abroad, Obama has succeeded in alienating our friends and embracing our enemies, while ensuring that Russia, China and ISIS rush in to fill the vacuum created by his abdication, and ours. The world is almost literally simmering to a full boil, while Obama stands before the United Nations of Thugs and Autocrats, chin in the air just like a certain Italian leader of the last century, poking his finger in the air and promoting the idea that the greatest threat the world faces today is not Islamic radicalism or the rise of nuclear-armed totalitarian world powers but instead, something he calls "violent extremism", which sounds meaningful until you realize he might just be talking about you.
And with an American presidential election on the horizon, along comes this man - this great, self-made business genius, as he'll be the first person to tell you, who gleefully ignores the punditocracy and the Democrat Monopoly Media while whipping adoring throngs into paroxyms of ecstasy with his blunt, no-holds-barred style of public speaking. Of course there are a slew of others running for the same office, but it has been Donald Trump who has dominated the headlines and the airwaves and who now leads all the polls.
And, as he'll also be the first to tell you, Donald has a "vision" and a "plan" for America, by which everything is going to be made not just better, but "incredible" and "amazing". He has even gone so far as to propose changes in our tax law, largely favoring, as it turns out, people who already pay little or no taxes, but let's not go there quite yet. The tax code is broken and he's proposing to change it, and that's a good thing.
As for his foreign policy, Trump may not know the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-foreign-policy-interview-hugh-hewitt), but he assures one and all that everything will be super once he's in the White House because "I'm a delegator. I find great people. I find absolutely great people, and I'll find them in our armed services, and I find absolutely great people." Well, okay then. Problem solved.
Trump also says that if elected, he's going to renegotiate all of America's trade deals and military agreements (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/28/trump-says-hell-upend-these-two-cornerstones-of-u-s-foreign-policy/): "We protect everybody and we don’t get reimbursement. We lose on everything. We lose on everything, so we’re going to negotiate and renegotiate trade deals, military deals, many other deals that’s going to get the cost down for running our country very significantly.”
Now there's admittedly a lot to like about a Republican candidate who finally admits what many in the rank-and-file have long been saying: America always seems to screwed while other nations benefit at our expense. But which treaties and which military arrangements are to be changed? What are his priorities for effecting these changes, since they quite obviously cannot be undertaken all at once, or even in less than a few years' time? Once again, Donald is a bit short on specifics.
Negating trade deals and military operations is far easier said than done. The next American president can’t simply take office and declare them null and void, not without chaotic results.
A number of Trump's competitors for the GOP nomination have not only spoken about their domestic and foreign policy, but have done so at length, in detail and evincing a knowledge of people, places and powers that Trump claims simply doesn't matter, as though the sheer force of his will would be sufficient to right a sinking ship. Just to name a few: Marco Rubio (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Marco_Rubio.htm), Carly Fiorina (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/17/a-simple-guide-to-what-carly-fiorina-actually-believes/), and Ted Cruz (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Cruz.htm) have all taken detailed policy positions explaining what they believe, what they intend to do, and more to the point, when asked by the usually hostile media sources, have all been able to answer clearly and without hesitation. For proof, simply watch the last Republican debate. Even Ben Carson, who can himself be a bit light on specifics, was able to handle himself with clarity and dignity.
For his part, Donald Trump appears to spend more of his time attacking his fellow candidates and others than he ever does President Obama or his radicalized Democrat Party, and again, more to the point, he always, always does so not in substantive, but in personal terms. To wit:
Jeb Bush is “weak” ...
Bobby Jindal is at “zero” in the polls.
Lindsey Graham is a “total lightweight.”
Rick Santorum: “I have a big plane. He doesn’t.”
Fox newscaster Megyn Kelly after the Republican debate on Aug. 6: “Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo.”
Really now. Who in public life ever speaks this way? Sure, we've got all kinds of liars (Hillary Clinton) and deceivers (Barack Who's Sane? Obama) and master manipulators (Hillary's Hubby) in politics, but they not only reserve their bile for the opposition, but are almost invariably predisposed to couch their language so as to not reflect badly on their judgment. It's not a matter of character, clearly. But it is about judgment and self-control.
So what's the problem with Trump? In a nutshell: judgment, or rather a deficit of it, which in turn ought to make reasonable people otherwise inclined to agree with him to perhaps, think a bit harder about the consequences of their support for him in a precarious and dangerous world.
Have you not noticed by now that Trump's natural instinct is not to respectfully disagree, but to offer angry, personal disdain for others? He appears to believe that he can change things by mere force of his Trump Towering personality, and that substantive, detailed knowledge is for policy wonks and losers. But in the real world, Trump's unshakeable conviction in his own greatness will not trump his shallowness of comprehension nor his impatience with the ideas of others; in the real world, they will trump Trump.
In the final analysis, I believe that Donald Trump's focus is not on helping America or solving problems, but on promoting himself. And as I've said before: as far as Presidents go, we've already got one of those.
In all candor, I do not know who I will vote for next year.
But America is in dire straits, and I will vote for the GOP candidate in 2016, irrespective of who it is.
I would only hope that, once again, I don't feel like washing my hands after leaving the booth.
-
My dislike has roots back in the late 90s in a business ethics class (MBA) with a very Conservative professor. We were looking at various modern business empires and how they operated. (deal making, growth, valuation, etc). When we got to Trump's business, it was the gold standard in unethical, high pressure, corruption of capitalism (what we generally refer to as cronyism today). The Art of the Deal was really taken apart as not a real discussion on negotiations but on using leverage (in Trump's case, often legislative leverage) to force the hand of the other party. The business wasn't about making a good or service that someone wanted to buy but focused on shifting expenses off the balance sheets in various ways and manipulating outside investors.
He didn't become a billionaire as a champion of Capitalism. He became one through force, manipulation, and pay-offs.
It really was a perfect example of the corruption the left likes to paint capitalism as, even though it isn't capitalism. When I see idiot with Che shirts decry the evils of Capitalism, they are generally using crony corporatist practices like Trumps as their example, which isn't free market Capitalism.
Of course, since then, we learn how he has gone much further, especially with his use of eminent domain seizures, buying off legislators to pass laws and regulations to put competitors out of business or bankrupt mom and pop businesses so he can take their land.
None of these are Conservative, Capitalist ideals- they are a centralized dominance and force over others is the opposite of these.
Compared to all that, the gold plated pop culture circus is just an annoyance.
-
I don't dislike Trump; nor do I like him. I love that he is shaking up the parasitical GOPe and causing the politically correct to have the vapors. This is a valuable service that he is doing.
However, I don't trust him to do what needs to be done. He is, by his own often proclaimed admission, a "deal-maker". I don't think we need a deal maker right now. We need someone to go into Washington DC and kick butt and take names. To hell with deal-making. That's what the GOPe has been doing, much to the detriment of the country. Partially because the GOPe'ers don't have a vision and ideology that they understand or accept enough to fight for, and because the left's idea of deal making is that the left gets everything they demand.
-
I don't like or dislike Trump. I just think he's a wild card who's fairly mentally undisciplined and operates too much by instinct. I don't want a President who is in a permanent state of flying by the seat of his pants.
-
I don't dislike Trump; nor do I like him. I love that he is shaking up the parasitical GOPe and causing the politically correct to have the vapors. This is a valuable service that he is doing.
However, I don't trust him to do what needs to be done. He is, by his own often proclaimed admission, a "deal-maker". I don't think we need a deal maker right now. We need someone to go into Washington DC and kick butt and take names. To hell with deal-making. That's what the GOPe has been doing, much to the detriment of the country. Partially because the GOPe'ers don't have a vision and ideology that they understand or accept enough to fight for, and because the left's idea of deal making is that the left gets everything they demand.
I love that he is shaking up the parasitical GOPe and causing the politically correct to have the vapors.
Does that do anything about the problems we face? Does that solve anything at all?
Democrats vote on emotion... and this has taught me that so do Republicans. It's disgusted me so much that I've re-registered as an independent after 25 years of voting straight-ticket Republican.
It's a betrayal of everything I've come to associate with Conservatism. Thought, critical thinking, problem-solving, fiscal prudence, loyalty - what was I thinking?
-
But America is in dire straits, and I will vote for the GOP candidate in 2016, irrespective of who it is.
This mentality will ensure that no other party will be able to rise to challenge the Democrats in the years to come. The Republican Party is a sinking ship. One needs only to look at the Presidential election trends since 1984 to see it.
Trump is probably the worst candidate to face Bernie Sanders (who will be the nominee, mark my words). A billionaire against an anti-billionaire socialist in this environment is a recipe for political disaster.
If it is Trump, even I won't vote for him.
-
This mentality will ensure that no other party will be able to rise to challenge the Democrats in the years to come. The Republican Party is a sinking ship. One needs only to look at the Presidential election trends since 1984 to see it.
Trump is probably the worst candidate to face Bernie Sanders (who will be the nominee, mark my words). A billionaire against an anti-billionaire socialist in this environment is a recipe for political disaster.
If it is Trump, even I won't vote for him.
To be honest, the state of the GOP is reflective of the political state of the GOP voter.
-
To be honest, the state of the GOP is reflective of the political state of the GOP voter.
But...the Dems have a similar...maybe worse problem.
-
I love that he is shaking up the parasitical GOPe and causing the politically correct to have the vapors.
Does that do anything about the problems we face? Does that solve anything at all?
Democrats vote on emotion... and this has taught me that so do Republicans. It's disgusted me so much that I've re-registered as an independent after 25 years of voting straight-ticket Republican.
It's a betrayal of everything I've come to associate with Conservatism. Thought, critical thinking, problem-solving, fiscal prudence, loyalty - what was I thinking?
Godzilla, it occurs to me that you merely want to start arguments. Had you read my entire post, you would not have commented as you have, unless you are merely trying to be provocative.
-
Godzilla, it occurs to me that you merely want to start arguments. Had you read my entire post, you would not have commented as you have, unless you are merely trying to be provocative.
Everything in your OP simply boils down to the fact you are gleeful that Trump makes the GOP sweat. My point, which you did not address, is that it is not helpful in fixing anything.
And this election cycle, so far, is showing me that the average GOP voter is basing their primary choice on emotion, just like Democrats. It's a betrayal of everything I've come to associate with conservatism.
---
Maybe if you want to convince others about the wisdom of your choice, you should talk about the wisdom of your choice?
-
It's disgusted me so much that I've re-registered as an independent after 25 years of voting straight-ticket Republican.
That is a purely emotion based decision.
So how is your self righteous emotion based decision any better than ours?
You have even abandoned your party because someone disagrees with you, that is not critical thinking.
You should be looking for ways to improve the party rather than abandoning it.
-
Andy wonders above:
[[ Really now. Who in public life ever speaks this way? ]]
I'll bet almost ALL of them "speak that way" -- or worse -- in private.
But they put on another face in public.
Mr. Trump seems to "wear the same face" in public as in private.
You know Andy, with all the hypocrisy in government, with all the mealy-mouthed candidates like Bush and Rubio, I kinda like that. I even respect Mr. Trump's harshness.
But then, I'm barely a step up from the sidewalk gutters... ;)
Aside:
Your remaining points about Mr. Trump remain valid, regardless of my comments above.
Andy closes with:
[[ In all candor, I do not know who I will vote for next year.
But America is in dire straits, and I will vote for the GOP candidate in 2016, irrespective of who it is.
I would only hope that, once again, I don't feel like washing my hands after leaving the booth. ]]
Yup -- being from New Hampshire, which could go either way, you're in a pickle.
Your vote up there might actually count for something.
I'm glad I'm down in Connecticut, where I don't have to dirty my hands by voting for president next year...whoever I vote for, is going to lose here anyway!
-
Everything in your OP simply boils down to the fact you are gleeful that Trump makes the GOP sweat. My point, which you did not address, is that it is not helpful in fixing anything.
And this election cycle, so far, is showing me that the average GOP voter is basing their primary choice on emotion, just like Democrats. It's a betrayal of everything I've come to associate with conservatism.
---
Maybe if you want to convince others about the wisdom of your choice, you should talk about the wisdom of your choice?
Making a choice because of being pandered to before each election and then being ignored, or worse - being ridiculed by influential party leaders AFTER they are re-elected on promises they apparently never intend to keep?
THAT, Godzilla, is not a choice made so much on emotion as it is a choice borne of past experience. More a deductive choice using reasoning and powers of intelligence. To support and vote for such candidates and to expect them to behave differently THIS time around is akin to the abused wife or husband that keeps going back to their spouse because they promise they'll be better this time around. THAT is an emotional choice!
Oh? You might say that those people are jumping from the frying pan into the fire? Maybe they figure they're cooked if they stay in the pan - might as well take the chance and jump far outside of the fire, on the chance they'll live to fight another day.
It's gotten that bad.
-
Oh? You might say that those people are jumping from the frying pan into the fire? Maybe they figure they're cooked if they stay in the pan - might as well take the chance and jump far outside of the fire, on the chance they'll live to fight another day.
It's gotten that bad.
Yes, it has.
-
But...the Dems have a similar...maybe worse problem.
The difference is democrats that don't like Hillary, will vote for her anyway. Unlike some numb skull people supposedly on the right.
I pledge again to vote for the Republican nominee, regardless of who it is because I am almost as old as Trump, almost as smart, and I have learned lessons from past elections, and from life.
-
The difference is democrats that don't like Hillary, will vote for her anyway. Unlike some numb skull people supposedly on the right.
I pledge again to vote for the Republican nominee, regardless of who it is because I am almost as old as Trump, almost as smart, and I have learned lessons from past elections, and from life.
As do I. I do not like Trump, I think he would make a poor president and, more to the point, I do not think he would win, but if he is the GOP nominee then I will vote for him, if for no other reason than that the DNC PoS would be much worse than he would be.
-
Andy....I was searching for the link. Then of course it occurred to me that you wrote it. Good stuff, buddy! :beer:
....the style, the style. Not the premise. :tongue2:
-
That is a purely emotion based decision.
So how is your self righteous emotion based decision any better than ours?
You have even abandoned your party because someone disagrees with you, that is not critical thinking.
You should be looking for ways to improve the party rather than abandoning it.
Abandoning a party that doesn't listen is a rational choice, much like having to cut the cord with a child that has grown-up but consistantly makes the wrong choices.
But it's really the members of the 'base' that are making the wrong choices. By cutting the cord, I no longer need to explain their actions or lend support to them. And at the same time, I am no longer associated in the public's eye to those selfsame people.
For in my observation, they hold principle over power, preferring to lose than to sully their honor. I disagree. It's better to sell the conservative ethos to the populace, adjusting when and where it fails to win adherents.
Because that places the levers of power in your hands, as opposed to being the recipient of that power.
-
Abandoning a party that doesn't listen is a rational choice, much like having to cut the cord with a child that has grown-up but consistantly makes the wrong choices.
But it's really the members of the 'base' that are making the wrong choices. By cutting the cord, I no longer need to explain their actions or lend support to them. And at the same time, I am no longer associated in the public's eye to those selfsame people.
For in my observation, they hold principle over power, preferring to lose than to sully their honor. I disagree. It's better to sell the conservative ethos to the populace, adjusting when and where it fails to win adherents.
Because that places the levers of power in your hands, as opposed to being the recipient of that power.
Fairly well put.
-
Making a choice because of being pandered to before each election and then being ignored, or worse - being ridiculed by influential party leaders AFTER they are re-elected on promises they apparently never intend to keep?
THAT, Godzilla, is not a choice made so much on emotion as it is a choice borne of past experience. More a deductive choice using reasoning and powers of intelligence. To support and vote for such candidates and to expect them to behave differently THIS time around is akin to the abused wife or husband that keeps going back to their spouse because they promise they'll be better this time around. THAT is an emotional choice!
Oh? You might say that those people are jumping from the frying pan into the fire? Maybe they figure they're cooked if they stay in the pan - might as well take the chance and jump far outside of the fire, on the chance they'll live to fight another day.
It's gotten that bad.
Making a choice because of being pandered to before each election and then being ignored, or worse - being ridiculed by influential party leaders AFTER they are re-elected on promises they apparently never intend to keep?
This makes no sense. Politicians, from the dawn of civilization itself, have pandered to their populations. It's very amazing to me that there are people that are actually 'shocked' by this. To me, those people have lived their entire lives politically blind.
So to have a hissy fit over this is just as ridiculous.
And since the rest of the post is built off of this assertion, it also really doesn't make any sense when viewed with the understanding that politicians pander, they have and always will.
-
Making a choice because of being pandered to before each election and then being ignored, or worse - being ridiculed by influential party leaders AFTER they are re-elected on promises they apparently never intend to keep?
This makes no sense. Politicians, from the dawn of civilization itself, have pandered to their populations. It's very amazing to me that there are people that are actually 'shocked' by this. To me, those people have lived their entire lives politically blind.
So to have a hissy fit over this is just as ridiculous.
And since the rest of the post is built off of this assertion, it also really doesn't make any sense when viewed with the understanding that politicians pander, they have and always will.
Some do pander more than others. The DNC routinely panders to a degree that Reagan never did.
-
A little off main topic, but be sure your precinct at least uses paper ballots for backup. Just saying.
By the way, Eric Schmidt et al have dropped their motto: Dont be evil
-
Some do pander more than others. The DNC routinely panders to a degree that Reagan never did.
No Republicans voted for Obamacare. That outcome HAD TO BE arranged by Boehner and McConnell.
Yet they get little or no credit in that regard. Instead both men are charged with failing to do what only veto proof majorities could do.
"True conservatives" come up ridiculously short, on logic and math, over and over.
Old time politics (as well as logic) would argue to negotiate with Obama; give him something he wants in return for something you want.
But I believe the far right wants the stalemate for their own purposes. They get to play the victim scenario.
They want to shut down government, and when Boehner and McConnell, elected to lead, feel shut down is a bad strategy, they turn on their leaders.
Yet when it comes time to lead, they have not thought ahead to even having a viable alternative to Boehner. These people are mostly rank amateurs, with questionable competence in my view.
Narrow but loud. Only holding about 20% of the House seats, for instance. Very quick to turn on their own. Ryan, Cantor, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio to name just a few.
-
No Republicans voted for Obamacare. That outcome HAD TO BE arranged by Boehner and McConnell.
Yet they get little or no credit in that regard. Instead both men are charged with failing to do what only veto proof majorities could do.
"True conservatives" come up ridiculously short, on logic and math, over and over.
Old time politics (as well as logic) would argue to negotiate with Obama; give him something he wants in return for something you want.
But I believe the far right wants the stalemate for their own purposes. They get to play the victim scenario.
They want to shut down government, and when Boehner and McConnell, elected to lead, feel shut down is a bad strategy, they turn on their leaders.
Yet when it comes time to lead, they have not thought ahead to even having a viable alternative to Boehner. These people are mostly rank amateurs, with questionable competence in my view.
Narrow but loud. Only holding about 20% of the House seats, for instance. Very quick to turn on their own. Ryan, Cantor, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio to name just a few.
This.
And now, with Trump/Carson and Boehner's near forced retirement, the general citizenry of our nation sees the GOP as controlled by that faction... who look to be highly xenophobic and who couldn't give two-<bleep>s over our Constitution.
-
No Republicans voted for Obamacare. That outcome HAD TO BE arranged by Boehner and McConnell.
Yet they get little or no credit in that regard. Instead both men are charged with failing to do what only veto proof majorities could do.
"True conservatives" come up ridiculously short, on logic and math, over and over.
Old time politics (as well as logic) would argue to negotiate with Obama; give him something he wants in return for something you want.
But I believe the far right wants the stalemate for their own purposes. They get to play the victim scenario.
They want to shut down government, and when Boehner and McConnell, elected to lead, feel shut down is a bad strategy, they turn on their leaders.
Yet when it comes time to lead, they have not thought ahead to even having a viable alternative to Boehner. These people are mostly rank amateurs, with questionable competence in my view.
Narrow but loud. Only holding about 20% of the House seats, for instance. Very quick to turn on their own. Ryan, Cantor, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio to name just a few.
In an ideal world, there would be horsetrading. Boehner and McConnell don't do that. They capitulate and give the other side 90% of what it wants, and demand little in return, then trumpet their small ball as some kind of victory. In 5 years about the only thing Boehner has held on was keeping the Bush tax cuts.
Let's not forget in the Gingrich era we got the Democrats messiah Bill Clinton to sign welfare reform among many other things. B and M don't even want to make Obama veto something, because they have this delustion in their head that Americans want DC work smooth, get along, and come up with bipartisan 'deals'. And they want that deal so bad that they're willing to do almost anything to get it.
Maybe conservatives have cut themselves off, but that knife cuts both ways. Boehner and McConnell have done just as much cutting.
-
ping for later
-
In an ideal world, there would be horsetrading. Boehner and McConnell don't do that.
In order to be a successful horse trader, someone has to want your horse, instead "they" want us to keep ours... :)
-
ping for later
-
I don't dislike Trump; nor do I like him. I love that he is shaking up the parasitical GOPe and causing the politically correct to have the vapors. This is a valuable service that he is doing.
However, I don't trust him to do what needs to be done. He is, by his own often proclaimed admission, a "deal-maker". I don't think we need a deal maker right now. We need someone to go into Washington DC and kick butt and take names. To hell with deal-making. That's what the GOPe has been doing, much to the detriment of the country. Partially because the GOPe'ers don't have a vision and ideology that they understand or accept enough to fight for, and because the left's idea of deal making is that the left gets everything they demand.
I understand your point. But, perhaps you overlooked a minor point here.
A deal involves an agreement entered into by two or more parties for their mutual benefit, especially in a business or political context. But, Trump said only that he would negotiate better deals for America, not himself or the GOP.
He doesn't appear to desire either political gain beyond this race (he's an outsider to politics), or personal enrichment (he's already got money). And I don't see how he could become any more famous than he already is (he reached icon status years ago).
At this point in his life he doesn't appear to care what people think about him (he doesn't use focus groups or political consultants to tell him what to say, he pretty much says whatever is on his mind).
So, what else could he gain if he were to compromise on his stated positions?
-
I understand your point. But, perhaps you overlooked a minor point here.
A deal involves an agreement entered into by two or more parties for their mutual benefit, especially in a business or political context. But, Trump said only that he would negotiate better deals for America, not himself or the GOP.
He doesn't appear to desire either political gain beyond this race (he's an outsider to politics), or personal enrichment (he's already got money). And I don't see how he could become any more famous than he already is (he reached icon status years ago).
At this point in his life he doesn't appear to care what people think about him (he doesn't use focus groups or political consultants to tell him what to say, he pretty much says whatever is on his mind).
So, what else could he gain if he were to compromise on his stated positions?
Trump's product is his name. Maybe he was wrong to think that running for president would boost his product but just like his television show that's what it is all about.
-
Andy wonders above:
[[ Really now. Who in public life ever speaks this way? ]]
I'll bet almost ALL of them "speak that way" -- or worse -- in private.
But they put on another face in public.
Mr. Trump seems to "wear the same face" in public as in private.
You know Andy, with all the hypocrisy in government, with all the mealy-mouthed candidates like Bush and Rubio, I kinda like that. I even respect Mr. Trump's harshness.
That's precisely at the root of his popularity. That, and that he projects an aura of energy and success. Plus, he positioned himself as the anti-politician at a point in our political life when politicians are viewed as anathema.
-
Making a choice because of being pandered to before each election and then being ignored, or worse - being ridiculed by influential party leaders AFTER they are re-elected on promises they apparently never intend to keep?
THAT, Godzilla, is not a choice made so much on emotion as it is a choice borne of past experience. More a deductive choice using reasoning and powers of intelligence. To support and vote for such candidates and to expect them to behave differently THIS time around is akin to the abused wife or husband that keeps going back to their spouse because they promise they'll be better this time around. THAT is an emotional choice!
Oh? You might say that those people are jumping from the frying pan into the fire? Maybe they figure they're cooked if they stay in the pan - might as well take the chance and jump far outside of the fire, on the chance they'll live to fight another day.
It's gotten that bad.
Yep, McConnell targeted conservatives. People like you and me and others here who proudly wear the mantle of conservatism.
-
Yep, McConnell targeted conservatives. People like you and me and others here who proudly wear the mantle of conservatism.
Hmmm...what I have heard is a lot of talk about no longer caring a fig about conservatism and only wanting to destroy the GOP.
-
This article is drawing a response at FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3347411/posts
-
This article is drawing a response at FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3347411/posts
The third one I read said "Screw Trump. There I said it." I predict more refugees from there..or at least one more.
-
The third one I read said "Screw Trump. There I said it." I predict more refugees from there..or at least one more.
Opinions are like anuses, everyone's got at least one....and, some have one at both ends.
-
Opinions are like anuses, everyone's got at least one....and, some have one at both ends.
Indeed they do.
-
Re: So why don't I like Donald Trump?
andy, I thought about it and I have the answer: Trump's an acquired taste. :whistle: wrong answer? Okay, then
...your mom taught you if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?
...you have a low threshold dislike for billionaire presidential candidates?
...where's the beef?
...copper colored hair reminds you of your first wife?
Come on people, help me out, I dying here...
-
...most of the good candidates have already been bought?
-
...no one told you politics demanded so much thinking?
-
Re: So why don't I like Donald Trump?
andy, I thought about it and I have the answer: Trump's an acquired taste. :whistle: wrong answer? Okay, then
...your mom taught you if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?
...you have a low threshold dislike for billionaire presidential candidates?
...where's the beef?
...copper colored hair reminds you of your first wife?
Come on people, help me out, I dying here...
You are looking for love in all the wrong places.
-
No Republicans voted for Obamacare. That outcome HAD TO BE arranged by Boehner and McConnell.
Yet they get little or no credit in that regard. Instead both men are charged with failing to do what only veto proof majorities could do.
"True conservatives" come up ridiculously short, on logic and math, over and over.
Old time politics (as well as logic) would argue to negotiate with Obama; give him something he wants in return for something you want.
But I believe the far right wants the stalemate for their own purposes. They get to play the victim scenario.
They want to shut down government, and when Boehner and McConnell, elected to lead, feel shut down is a bad strategy, they turn on their leaders.
Yet when it comes time to lead, they have not thought ahead to even having a viable alternative to Boehner. These people are mostly rank amateurs, with questionable competence in my view.
Narrow but loud. Only holding about 20% of the House seats, for instance. Very quick to turn on their own. Ryan, Cantor, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio to name just a few.
I don't disagree.
-
But I believe the far right wants the stalemate for their own purposes. They get to play the victim scenario.
Only Obama has "shut down government". The Congressional majority needs to pass what the majority believes in. If the President vetoes that, then the President is responsible.
When the so-called "GOP leaders" set stuff up where leftwing stuff can pass with a minority vote in Congress they have become usurpers.
-
Re: So why don't I like Donald Trump?
andy, I thought about it and I have the answer: Trump's an acquired taste. :whistle: wrong answer? Okay, then
I am a conservative and Trump is not.
I am anti-establishment and Trump is not.
-
I am a conservative and Trump is not.
I am anti-establishment and Trump is not.
Kudos for the clear opinion. So, using the same criteria, who do you support in this race?
-
This article is drawing a response at FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3347411/posts
That really does demonstrate the difference between here and there. TOS reads like a Jr. High playground with not a single cogent comment, pro or con on their position in about 300 posts, just name calling.
-
That really does demonstrate the difference between here and there. TOS reads like a Jr. High playground with not a single cogent comment, pro or con on their position in about 300 posts, just name calling.
Hey, I guess that makes us political refugees! ^-^
-
That really does demonstrate the difference between here and there. TOS reads like a Jr. High playground with not a single cogent comment, pro or con on their position in about 300 posts, just name calling.
I don't appreciate being called names, but one has to consider the source.
-
Only Obama has "shut down government". The Congressional majority needs to pass what the majority believes in. If the President vetoes that, then the President is responsible.
When the so-called "GOP leaders" set stuff up where leftwing stuff can pass with a minority vote in Congress they have become usurpers.
Perception is reality. It doesn't matter what the facts are, if most Americans believe Republicans are the ones who shut down the government, then they get the blame.
And that is what has happened, and will happen, in every shutdown scenario for the past 20 years. You don't have to like it, but there it is.
-
That really does demonstrate the difference between here and there. TOS reads like a Jr. High playground with not a single cogent comment, pro or con on their position in about 300 posts, just name calling.
You are right, and it's sad. I used to read the comments to gain a better understanding of the particular issue being discussed. Used to be a whole lot of knowledgeable posters. Now it's: "Bush's fault", "in before the" whatever, "Laz would hit it", and countless other inane mind-numbingly stupid and counterproductive comments.
8888crybaby
-
I don't appreciate being called names, but one has to consider the source.
Hey andy - I would consider it an honor to be insulted by those goons.
Not one of the people that I saw posting has an IQ within 50 points of yours, nor the truly cogent and lucid writing style you display.
btw, I scrolled down the first page and only saw 1 or 2 names I recognized. Thank heavens. I've been away from there long enough to either forget, or never get to know the thug parade.
Now, after reading that swill, I think I need a shower.......... :smokin:
-
We are truly lucky and honored that you're here, Andy. :laugh:
-
Happy, too.
-
I enjoy the company here, and I'm thankful for the opportunity it provides me to exercise my passions. I am also grateful for you people and yes, even for your critiques; you so often force me to think and question and discern and distill. I cannot adequately express how much that means to me.
-
We are truly lucky and honored that you're here, Andy. :laugh:
Not me. The guy makes my posts look like babbling scribbles. Sheesh. Whadya get, andy? A vocabulary for Christmas.
-
Not me. The guy makes my posts look like babbling scribbles. Sheesh. Whadya get, andy? A vocabulary for Christmas.
Well, as it happens I'm Jewish, so perhaps you'd favor me with a thesaurus for Hannukah. :beer:
-
Well, as it happens I'm Jewish, so perhaps you'd favor me with a thesaurus for Hannukah. :beer:
:beer: