The Briefing Room
General Category => Sports/Entertainment/MSM/Social Media => Topic started by: corbe on July 28, 2017, 01:53:02 pm
-
Ex-Cruz aide: Trump presidency 'is effectively over'
By Joe Concha - 07/28/17 08:16 AM EDT
Sen. Ted Cruz's former communications director Rick Tyler declared the presidency of Donald Trump "is effectively over" on MSNBC on Friday.
"I think this presidency is effectively over," Tyler told "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski.
"And if you look back to different presidencies, you look at Bill Clinton. He had a rough first two years, very difficult two years. But after Oklahoma City he was able to regain his footing and become presidential until he slipped on a blue dress," Tyler continued.
"But this President cannot change. Nothing about his behavior tells me, since the beginning of this process, that he was going to change. And if you cannot change and you cannot become presidential, and you cannot convince the majority of the American people to enact some legislative agenda that he wants passed, his presidency legislatively is effectively over," he concluded.
Tyler was fired from Cruz's presidential campaign in February 2016 after circulating a fake story about Sen. Marco Rubio, also a presidential candidate. He was hired shortly thereafter by MSNBC as a contributor.
<..snip..>
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/344281-ex-cruz-campaign-manager-trump-presidency-is-effectively-over (http://thehill.com/homenews/media/344281-ex-cruz-campaign-manager-trump-presidency-is-effectively-over)
-
Tyler was fired from Cruz's presidential campaign in February 2016 after circulating a fake story about Sen. Marco Rubio, also a presidential candidate. He was hired shortly thereafter by MSNBC as a contributor.
:rolling:
Ok, that's just funny.
In any case, Trump has done some good things and some really stupid things. Either way, it's a little early to start writing the obituary only 8 months in. Where there is life, there is hope.
-
Wow. This gutter rat is still being interviewed as some sort of expert.
-
At this point, I sort of want them to find evidence of Russian collusion so Trump can be impeached as soon as humanly possible. The only way to save conservatism at this point is for President Pence to step in before well before midterms.
The Russian thing is a joke, of course, but it's about the only hope we have left of stopping Trump from completely scuttling any last vestige of conservatism in his three ring circus.
-
One wouldn't expect anything else but sour grapes,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Kansas, all known Conservative states, give Trump high approval ratings. Those who BS that Trump is not conservative are just smearing others. I will go with the map.
Oh, Glenn Beck also was in Cruz's camp; like I really want to hear what Glenn says.
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/t54hpglii02p4zjceg6dxw.png)
Take that Never Trumpers, and take this too for your falsehoods.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C_2016.svg/959px-Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C_2016.svg.png)
Those states that voted for Trump are liberal, oh right.
-
Cruz fires top staffer for promoting false story about Rubio and the Bible
The swift action comes as the Texas senator's rivals are increasingly branding him as a liar.
By ELIZA COLLINS and NOLAN D. MCCASKILL
02/22/2016 03:33 PM EST
Ted Cruz on Monday asked for the resignation of top aide Rick Tyler, who he accused of a “grave error of judgment” for promoting a false story that questioned Marco Rubio’s faith.
The story and accompanying transcript from The Daily Pennsylvanian, a student newspaper, said Rubio had walked by a Cruz staffer on Saturday who was reading a Bible, and told him it didn’t “have many answers in it.”
Tyler, Cruz’s communications director, posted the story on Facebook on Sunday, but later deleted it and apologized after a Cruz staffer said Rubio didn’t make any such comment. But Cruz decided greater action was needed.
Continued: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/breaking-news-cruz-asks-for-national-spokesman-rick-tylers-resignation-219632
-
He's right IMO.
70 year old men don't change. And Trump is ostracizing anyone who might work with him.
How is he wrong?
People in this forum have a hard time with the truth.
-
Wow. This gutter rat is still being interviewed as some sort of expert.
Yes, he was fired from the Cruz campaign, but they introduce him as "Ex-Cruz aide". Technically correct but very deceptive.
-
Wow. This gutter rat is still being interviewed as some sort of expert.
Tagging him to Cruz with this statement is not helpful to the Senator.
-
He's right IMO.
70 year old men don't change. And Trump is ostracizing anyone who might work with him.
How is he wrong?
People in this forum have a hard time with the truth.
What would you do to bring McCain, Murkowski and Collins into the fold @Weird Tolkienish Figure
Tell us all what the President missed. Be specific---this is your moment to truly shine.
-
At this point, I sort of want them to find evidence of Russian collusion so Trump can be impeached as soon as humanly possible. The only way to save conservatism at this point is for President Pence to step in before well before midterms.
The Russian thing is a joke, of course, but it's about the only hope we have left of stopping Trump from completely scuttling any last vestige of conservatism in his three ring circus.
This is scaring me...but I agree with you........
-
Read credible guy there...
The Trump presidency is not over, but he needs to start making some major changes.
-
Yes, he was fired from the Cruz campaign, but they introduce him as "Ex-Cruz aide". Technically correct but very deceptive.
Compounded by Politico as the source, posted here as one of a never-ending string, of #nevertrump agenda articles. IOW it fits a well worn pattern.
Meanwhile, Debbie WS' operative may well have jeopardized our national security, while she was arranging the nomination for Hillary, against Bernie.
Health care reform went down in smoke, thanks to an establishment Republican; the type Trump ran against and defeated to get to his position.
Hillary's campaign probably commissioned the Russia story, from the beginning. (the dossier, the Brit, etc.)
Has Trump's presidency been elegant thus far, not really. Has it born results? Yes. Good ones, and more will follow.
President Trump disrupted the cheese, for democrats, establishment Republicans, the media etc. Makes them very, very uncomfortable.
They can be expected, to keep making trouble for him.
-
At this point, I sort of want them to find evidence of Russian collusion so Trump can be impeached as soon as humanly possible. The only way to save conservatism at this point is for President Pence to step in before well before midterms.
The Russian thing is a joke, of course, but it's about the only hope we have left of stopping Trump from completely scuttling any last vestige of conservatism in his three ring circus.
That would literally insure that the Democrats regained power of both houses in Congress in 2018.... and would lock in a presidential win for them in 2020. Nobody but a RINO or a Democrat would want that. So why do YOU want it?
-
This is scaring me...but I agree with you........
(https://mcguff1.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/nambypambyland.gif)
@mrpotatohead
-
Compounded by Politico as the source, posted here as one of a never-ending string, of #nevertrump agenda articles. IOW it fits a well worn pattern.
Meanwhile, Debbie WS' operative may well have jeopardized our national security, while she was arranging the nomination for Hillary, against Bernie.
Health care reform went down in smoke, thanks to an establishment Republican; the type Trump ran against and defeated to get to his position.
Hillary's campaign probably commissioned the Russia story, from the beginning. (the dossier, the Brit, etc.)
Has Trump's presidency been elegant thus far, not really. Has it born results? Yes. Good ones, and more will follow.
President Trump disrupted the cheese, for democrats, establishment Republicans, the media etc. Makes them very, very uncomfortable.
They can be expected, to keep making trouble for him.
I must say, pithy logic and common sense seem to be your strongest suit. Of course, you have many more fine qualities, too. But, I'll leave those for later -- don't want too many splodie heads from the NT contingent -- might leave too big a mess for our ever vigilant moderators to clean up after.
-
That would literally insure that the Democrats regained power of both houses in Congress in 2018.... and would lock in a presidential win for them in 2020. Nobody but a RINO or a Democrat would want that. So why do YOU want it?
Simple answer. The man is FRIGGEN NUTS.
-
The Russian thing is a joke, of course, but it's about the only hope we have left of stopping Trump from completely scuttling any last vestige of conservatism in his three ring circus.
I'm convinced Destroying all Conservative candidates in the primaries to oppose Hillary was the main purpose of Trump being in the running. Hildabeast's Stalking Horse. I think that instead of taking a knee in the final round like he was supposed to, Trump could't let go of the idea of 'winning' and pushed on for the 'win'.
I think that stunned the entirety of D.C. who thought the 'fix' was in.
The secondary payload of Trump in the White House is to purge Conservatism from any and all political relevance in the GOP and ensure the Uniparty forever remains unopposed by limited government and individual liberty idealism.
-
That would literally insure that the Democrats regained power of both houses in Congress in 2018.... and would lock in a presidential win for them in 2020. Nobody but a RINO or a Democrat would want that. So why do YOU want it?
Bzzzt.
Trump is ensuring (it *is* "ensuring, btw) that the Democrats will not only take both houses, but the Presidency in the next elections.
The ONLY hope to save conservatism is to put an adult conservative back in charge while there is still time to show America what a proper conservative can accomplish. Period.
It seems that YOU want the death of conservatism by continuing to support this clown and his circus. YOU are the one that is ruining any chance of conservatism ever winning the day. YOU brought us Trump and you want the Trump Train to drive conservatism right over a cliff.
Go away, faux conservative. You've done enough damage already.
-
.../ The secondary payload of Trump in the White House is to purge Conservatism from any and all political relevance in the GOP and ensure the Uniparty forever remains unopposed by limited government and individual liberty idealism.
Purge what Conservative relevance? The country was ready for change. If Conservatives had any relevance, they would have won. It's really that simple.
Face it, there hasn't been any Conservative relevance since Ronald Reagan. Perhaps it's time to do something more than whine about it and point fingers???
-
Bzzzt.
Trump is ensuring (it *is* "ensuring, btw) that the Democrats will not only take both houses, but the Presidency in the next elections.
The ONLY hope to save conservatism is to put an adult conservative back in charge while there is still time to show America what a proper conservative can accomplish. Period.
It seems that YOU want the death of conservatism by continuing to support this clown and his circus. YOU are the one that is ruining any chance of conservatism ever winning the day. YOU brought us Trump and you want the Trump Train to drive conservatism right over a cliff.
Go away, faux conservative. You've done enough damage already.
WTF??? LOL! I had nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, to do with bringing anybody Trump.
Get.... a..... (much needed).... clue.
-
He's been a lame duck almost from the beginning and he can't stop shooting himself in the feet.
-
Purge what Conservative relevance? The country was ready for change. If Conservatives had any relevance, they would have won. It's really that simple.
Well by all means, enjoy your Socialist/Marxist majority you have accepted and have fun playing in their sandbox .
Make sure you share your toys with them now, but don't expect them to share with you. It's how Communism works.
The rest of us have no time for the sandbox. We have another playground to build.
-
Perhaps now, after scaramoohie, the honorable men and women in government will stop propping up this low life president.
-
He's right IMO.
70 year old men don't change. And Trump is ostracizing anyone who might work with him.
How is he wrong?
People in this forum have a hard time with the truth.
I really did think he could change, and could pivot effectively from campaigning to governing. I thought most of his Cabinet picks were outstanding. But I've given up hope - he cannot manage effectively, he's increasingly erratic, he's sowed a culture of chaos, and he won't do the hard work needed to advance his legislative priorities. All he can do is tweet.
We need President Pence, the sooner the better.
-
Over? Did He say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain't over now for Trump. Cuz when the going gets tough ... the going gets tough
-
I really did think he could change, and could pivot effectively from campaigning to governing. I thought most of his Cabinet picks were outstanding. But I've given up hope - he cannot manage effectively, he's increasingly erratic, he's sowed a culture of chaos, and he won't do the hard work needed to advance his legislative priorities. All he can do is tweet.
We need President Pence, the sooner the better.
Yes, it's very sad. I had hoped he could rise to the challenge. He's got some very good qualities going for him, but he lets the chaos override everything else.
-
Yes, it's very sad. I had hoped he could rise to the challenge. He's got some very good qualities going for him, but he lets the chaos override everything else.
There was a constructive reason for the chaos at first, it kept the opposition off balance. Well, that part worked fine and now he's keeping what are supposed to be his allies off balance. That's pointless. This health-care fiasco is a case in point. No excuse for letting McCain wander off the plantation last night. McCain said he went "Nay" because Governor Ducey didn't like the bill. That would have been a great time to call his pal Ducey (a fellow CEO of a company) and explained how the bill was a good one (even if it wasn't).
Trump didn't bother. He still doesn't know how to play the game, and he's not learning. Oh sure, I can hear the words now, "He's changing the rules of the rigged game!" When you sit down at the Monopoly board, you know the rules, there's no changing them after the game starts.
-
Purge what Conservative relevance? The country was ready for change. If Conservatives had any relevance, they would have won. It's really that simple.
Face it, there hasn't been any Conservative relevance since Ronald Reagan. Perhaps it's time to do something more than whine about it and point fingers???
Actually do something? Make convincing efforts? Or just issue forth repetitive, lengthy essays?
Conservatives as a class, have lost the willingness to learn effective arguments and to make them. They actually believe that threats to not vote, or to vote 3rd party get anything worthwhile, accomplished in terms of getting conservative RESULTS.
-
Conservatives as a class, have lost the willingness to learn effective arguments and to make them. They actually believe that threats to not vote, or to vote 3rd party get anything worthwhile, accomplished in terms of getting conservative RESULTS.
What it means is that Conservatives who actually have a brain to think with have figured out that the party they called 'home' is irrevocably corrupt and broken and there is no 'fixing' it given the rules changes to ensure the Oligarchy remains untouched by any attempt at grassroots replacement that is not groomed through them.
So, as the Colonies figured out back in 1775-76, their 'government' was a tyranny not worth working with anymore - and they went independent to effect change.
Which is the model Principled Conservatives have decided to follow.
Time to start over from scratch.
-
WTF??? LOL! I had nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, to do with bringing anybody Trump.
Get.... a..... (much needed).... clue.
Who did you vote for?
-
Who did you vote for?
I voted for the Constitution Party, Castle. And I would do it again if the election were held today.
-
Election day arrives after months - years even, in which a candidate's popularity, which eventually translates to votes, is sampled. So we have a pretty good idea where the candidates stand. Of course some candidates can rise and some can sputter and hit a brick wall. But, on the whole we have a pretty good idea of where they stand -- popularity wise.
But if on Election morning my candidate has gained 0 traction, polling in low single digits, there'd be no way I could have in good conscience voted for that candidate. Not with Hillary in the room. No way.
But, I assume you made your statement as you wished. Surprised to hear you'd make it again the same way.
Votes are wonderful things. Personally, I could never have done that in the 2016 election.
-
I must say, pithy logic and common sense seem to be your strongest suit. Of course, you have many more fine qualities, too. But, I'll leave those for later -- don't want too many splodie heads from the NT contingent -- might leave too big a mess for our ever vigilant moderators to clean up after.
It is a shame some things never last anymore.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,233998.msg1140360.html#msg1140360
-
It is a shame some things never last anymore.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,233998.msg1140360.html#msg1140360
:laugh:
-
This is rather a little premature. Trump hasn't yet done anything so catastrophic that he can't recover from it. There are 3-1/2 years left, so there's time for a turn around.
It ain't over til it's over. The fat lady may be testing her pipes, but she ain't singing yet.
-
It is a shame some things never last anymore.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,233998.msg1140360.html#msg1140360
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
This is rather a little premature. Trump hasn't yet done anything so catastrophic that he can't recover from it. There are 3-1/2 years left, so there's time for a turn around.
It ain't over til it's over. The fat lady may be testing her pipes, but she ain't singing yet.
Unless Trump changes it's over.
And he won't change, in all likelihood.
Therefor it's over.
-
Unless Trump changes it's over.
And he won't change, in all likelihood.
Therefor it's over.
Nixon was far more popular than Trump and not constantly attacking his own party.
Trump will eject before the end of his first term.
-
Nixon was far more popular than Trump and not constantly attacking his own party.
Trump will eject before the end of his first term.
Yeah, and I don't think he'll be pardoned either. I think it will be a riches to rags situation for the whole Trump clan.
-
Yeah, and I don't think he'll be pardoned either. I think it will be a riches to rags situation for the whole Trump clan.
That wouldn't be all bad. Melania can come live in the treehouse in my back yard.
-
I voted for the Constitution Party, Castle. And I would do it again if the election were held today.
Well, who the heck was that obnoxious white-cat-avatar Trumpette?
-
What would you do to bring McCain, Murkowski and Collins into the fold @Weird Tolkienish Figure
Tell us all what the President missed. Be specific---this is your moment to truly shine.
@Right_in_Virginia @Weird Tolkienish Figure
That's an easy one. The president spends time in those states giving speech after speech after speech presenting a coherent argument for at the ACA must be repealed. You state again and again and again that "your senators promised to repeal it". You cause those three drooling buffoons to catch unbearable heat from their constituents. It's how it is done.
Of course the problem with this scenario in this particular instance is that our illustrious president cannot string two coherent sentences together, let alone make a coherent argument.
-
Well, who the heck was that obnoxious white-cat-avatar Trumpette?
She still posts here, she posted the other day.
-
Well, who the heck was that obnoxious white-cat-avatar Trumpette?
Just look elsewhere on this thread friend
-
It is a shame some things never last anymore.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,233998.msg1140360.html#msg1140360
Dayum! @Wingnut
:silly:
-
Well, who the heck was that obnoxious white-cat-avatar Trumpette?
Which obnoxious white-cat-avatar? Waitaminute...that didn't come out right...
Ooops, @XenaLee :tongue2:
-
Just look elsewhere on this thread friend
AH! I've had that person on ignore for a while, so even their avatar doesn't show up. Heh.
Apologies, @XenaLee, for conflating you with someone else.
-
AH! I've had that person on ignore for a while, so even their avatar doesn't show up. Heh.
Apologies, @XenaLee, for conflating you with someone else.
No problem ^-^.
-
Which obnoxious white-cat-avatar? Waitaminute...that didn't come out right...
Ooops, @XenaLee :tongue2:
Careful. I'm watching you. You shall not escape my wrath! 22222frying pan ****slapping :bash: :2gunz: 13859
-
Purge what Conservative relevance? The country was ready for change. If Conservatives had any relevance, they would have won. It's really that simple.
Face it, there hasn't been any Conservative relevance since Ronald Reagan. Perhaps it's time to do something more than whine about it and point fingers???
Finally, an admission that Trump is not a conservative.
-
Careful. I'm watching you. You shall not escape my wrath! 22222frying pan ****slapping :bash: :2gunz: 13859
Awwww, you know I'm sweet on you. I love that kitteh.
-
Finally, an admission that Trump is not a conservative.
Trump folks have been bragging for years conservatives are crap. McConnell openly bragged about destroying them in Kentucky. Where you been?
-
Trump folks have been bragging for years conservatives are crap. McConnell openly bragged about destroying them in Kentucky. Where you been?
There's also at least one "Trump folk" here that has some list of Pro this and Pro that that proves Trump is a conservative.
-
Awwww, you know I'm sweet on you. I love that kitteh.
lol
-
There's also at least one "Trump folk" here that has some list of Pro this and Pro that that proves Trump is a conservative.
We have at least one here who swears up and down Obamacare is a conservative concept. We have all kinds.
-
We have at least one here who swears up and down Obamacare is a conservative concept. We have all kinds.
Yep, I've read that nonsense also.
-
We have at least one here who swears up and down Obamacare is a conservative concept. We have all kinds.
Oh... you mean from the resident "you didn't build that/you just got lucky" commie that calls himself a conservative? Yeah. He hasn't fooled anyone but himself with that shtick.
-
We have at least one here who swears up and down Obamacare is a conservative concept. We have all kinds.
ObamaCare is not a conservative concept. It's an abomination. The individual mandate is a conservative concept.
-
Tagging him to Cruz with this statement is not helpful to the Senator.
Which is of course why they did it.
-
Oh... you mean from the resident "you didn't build that/you just got lucky" commie that calls himself a conservative? Yeah. He hasn't fooled anyone but himself with that shtick.
You're lucky to have good health, and in this country, you're lucky to have good health insurance. Talk to your neighbors and get some empathy for how folks are stressed and suffering. And learn some insurance basics, especially if you want to call yourself a conservative.
-
You're lucky to have good health, and in this country, you're lucky to have good health insurance. Talk to your neighbors and get some empathy for how folks are stressed and suffering. And learn some insurance basics, especially if you want to call yourself a conservative.
And The second member of Team Douche Canoe paddles upstream in this discussion.
-
ObamaCare is not a conservative concept. It's an abomination. The individual mandate is a conservative concept.
Congratulations! You contradicted yourself in only three sentences, a new personal record. Be proud!
-
And The second member of Team Douche Canoe paddles upstream in this discussion.
He tags first base as he runs for the second base standing out. I'm waiting for the denial of virtue.
-
Congratulations! You contradicted yourself in only three sentences, a new personal record. Be proud!
How so? Lots of stuff wrong with the ACA, but the individual mandate isn't one of them. You prefer single payer?
-
Trump folks have been bragging for years conservatives are crap. McConnell openly bragged about destroying them in Kentucky. Where you been?
I quite remember that. McConnell not only worked with Democrats locally to sabotage the grassroots TEA Party, he publicly threatened to "punch us in the nose' for daring to run a grassroots conservative against him, and I will NEVER forget the kinds of sleazeball attacks his campaign flung at Bevin (who is now our Governor) that he NEVER flung at Obama or the Democrats.
It is becoming self evident that those who self-identify as Conservatives and talk about the fact Conservatism is not a winner and that the country wants change - are indeed better off caucusing with Democrats in whom they are more closely aligned in mindset, ideology and belief in terms of the role of the Big State in all our lives.
-
How so? Lots of stuff wrong with the ACA, but the individual mandate isn't one of them. You prefer single payer?
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/995/829/909.jpg)
-
Well, so what was my contradiction?
-
Well, so what was my contradiction?
Your words:
ObamaCare is not a conservative concept. <<==>> The individual mandate is a conservative concept.
Obamacare is all about mandates, you fool. You lose, game over, my work is done on this thread.
-
He tags first base as he runs for the second base standing out. I'm waiting for the denial of virtue.
He already stated in a separate thread that he hates social conservatives. Of course, he's not the only one around here that feels that way. I'm good with the upfront info; tells me what I need to know.
-
Your words:
ObamaCare is not a conservative concept. <<==>> The individual mandate is a conservative concept.
Obamacare is all about mandates, you fool. You lose, game over, my work is done on this thread.
The ACA runs a thousand pages, the individual mandate maybe a dozen. The ACA is a comprehensive piece of overly intrusive governmental audacity. The individual mandate is the one feature that rationally supports the idea of affordable community-rated insurance. Stick with the discussion, don't cop out on me.
-
He already stated in a separate thread that he hates social conservatives. Of course, he's not the only one around here that feels that way. I'm good with the upfront info; tells me what I need to know.
I said I despise social conservatives and identity-politics liberals. Birds of a feather IMO.
-
Trump's saving grace is that the economy is doing ok.
-
Well, who the heck was that obnoxious white-cat-avatar Trumpette?
That would be a fine man, a Vietnam vet, run off this site by rude refugees.
-
She still posts here, she posted the other day.
A man, a Vietnam Vet and worthy of respect. An original member of this site, dating to 2009.
Imagine that. Somebody that has done more for his country, than talk.
-
You're lucky to have good health, and in this country, you're lucky to have good health insurance. Talk to your neighbors and get some empathy for how folks are stressed and suffering. And learn some insurance basics, especially if you want to call yourself a conservative.
The people that are stressed and suffering, are those with insane premium increase, insane deductible increases.
For them I have empathy.
The average person that is getting a free or subsidy ride on the backs of taxpayers, is not suffering or stressed.
The individual mandate was merely the product of a think tank. Not one Republican voted for it on the national level.
Reagan spoke out strongly in opposition to national health care, fearing it was an unwise step towards socialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnLa1BvtaxM
-
The people that are stressed and suffering, are those with insane premium increase, insane deductible increases.
For them I have empathy.
Yes, the distortions in the private insurance market caused by the ACA need to be fixed.
The average person that is getting a free or subsidy ride on the backs of taxpayers, is not suffering or stressed.
The "average person", to be more specific, is a working guy who can't get insurance from his employer, a guy who's lost or switched jobs, or gone into business for himself, a guy who was laid off in his fifties. These are typical Americans who've been helped by the ability to get community-rated individual insurance.
The individual mandate was merely the product of a think tank. Not one Republican voted for it on the national level.
So what? It's been supported by thoughtful conservatives at the state level.
Reagan spoke out strongly in opposition to national health care, fearing it was an unwise step towards socialism.
Establishing a functioning community-rated private insurance market that encourages mobility and growth is the very best way to stave off socialism.
-
I'm convinced Destroying all Conservative candidates in the primaries to oppose Hillary was the main purpose of Trump being in the running. Hildabeast's Stalking Horse. I think that instead of taking a knee in the final round like he was supposed to, Trump could't let go of the idea of 'winning' and pushed on for the 'win'.
I think that stunned the entirety of D.C. who thought the 'fix' was in.
The secondary payload of Trump in the White House is to purge Conservatism from any and all political relevance in the GOP and ensure the Uniparty forever remains unopposed by limited government and individual liberty idealism.
There were only three conservative candidates, Rand Paul, Me Too Ted, and Trump. Rand never caught on. "Me Too Ted" decided to go "Lying Ted" and doomed himself by running a very nasty campaign. That left Trump. All the rest were Bushbots.
-
@Jazzhead
Ok, you've convinced me. One last hurdle to clear:which part of the Constitution explicitly states that it is within the federal government's purview to dictate the terms between individual citizens and a private industry OR dictate the terms by which people get healthcare?
IT'S NOT THEIR JOB! It is ONLY a means by which they will grab more power over our lives. No thank you!
-
I voted for the Constitution Party, Castle. And I would do it again if the election were held today.
You might want to check the website of his legal practice to see just how principled he truly is.
-
There were only three conservative candidates, Rand Paul, Me Too Ted, and Trump. Rand never caught on. "Me Too Ted" decided to go "Lying Ted" and doomed himself by running a very nasty campaign. That left Trump. All the rest were Bushbots.
Oh, yes, "Lyin Ted". Heck, he was so good at it he almost outlied Trump. *****rollingeyes*****
-
I voted for the Constitution Party, Castle. And I would do it again if the election were held today.
As would I because I won't stain my soul by voting for degenerate garbage like trump.
-
A man, a Vietnam Vet and worthy of respect. An original member of this site, dating to 2009.
Imagine that. Somebody that has done more for his country, than talk.
Thanks for the kind words. That's something that has been sorely missing from these pages lately.
And allow me take this opportunity to thank you for your service, as well. You will always have my respect.
:flag:
-
There were only three conservative candidates, Rand Paul, Me Too Ted, and Trump. Rand never caught on. "Me Too Ted" decided to go "Lying Ted" and doomed himself by running a very nasty campaign. That left Trump. All the rest were Bushbots.
Yeah, Ted lost me when he personally attacked Trump's father and wife.
-
Yeah, Ted lost me when he personally attacked Trump's father and wife.
I know, right?
-
Thanks for the kind words. That's something that has been sorely missing from these pages lately.
And allow me take this opportunity to thank you for your service, as well. You will always have my respect.
:flag:
That's what I like about this place. In that there is respect between fine members like yourselves. Now that the mutual bullshit is over with you two pile o monkey nuts can we get back to the task at hand.... or are we just jerking off?
-
Read credible guy there...
The Trump presidency is not over, but he needs to start making some major changes.
I agree.. He better change now..
-
That's what I like about this place. In that there is respect between fine members like yourselves. Now that the mutual bullshit is over with you two pile o monkey nuts can we get back to the task at hand.... or are we just jerking off?
I respect the honorable service of everyone who served but see no need to continually drag that into every conversation on this site.
-
I agree.. He better change now..
What are the chances of that happening?
-
What are the chances of that happening?
1% of that happening.
-
Thanks for the kind words. That's something that has been sorely missing from these pages lately.
And allow me take this opportunity to thank you for your service, as well. You will always have my respect.
:flag:
We don't agree on to much Politically @aligncare @truth_seeker BUT like all Members here your participation is welcome and usually respected. Thank You
-
That's what I like about this place. In that there is respect between fine members like yourselves. Now that the mutual bullshit is over with you two pile o monkey nuts can we get back to the task at hand.... or are we just jerking off?
888high58888
-
@Jazzhead
Ok, you've convinced me. One last hurdle to clear:which part of the Constitution explicitly states that it is within the federal government's purview to dictate the terms between individual citizens and a private industry OR dictate the terms by which people get healthcare?
IT'S NOT THEIR JOB! It is ONLY a means by which they will grab more power over our lives. No thank you!
It has long been the role of government to regulate the insurance industry. Government has traditionally regulated both the financial integrity of the insurer (e.g., reserve requirements) and the kind of policies that can be sold in a state. Before the ACA, for example, some states required community rating, and others did not.
You seem to object to such regulation at the federal level; do you also object to regulation at the state level? If you favor the rights of the states to regulate - which is my position - what do you think of the conservative proposal to allow insurers to sell their products across state lines, and thereby circumvent state law requirements for quality and content?
-
It has long been the role of government to regulate the insurance industry. Government has traditionally regulated both the financial integrity of the insurer (e.g., reserve requirements) and the kind of policies that can be sold in a state. Before the ACA, for example, some states required community rating, and others did not.
You seem to object to such regulation at the federal level; do you also object to regulation at the state level? If you favor the rights of the states to regulate - which is my position - what do you think of the conservative proposal to allow insurers to sell their products across state lines, and thereby circumvent state law requirements for quality and content?
Jazzhead, just an observation - your comment very clearly shows that you aren't very familiar with the Constitution.
-
Jazzhead, just an observation - your comment very clearly shows that you aren't very familiar with the Constitution.
A difference of opinion doesn't imply a lack of familiarity. Do you favor a federal rule allowing folks to obtain insurance policies across state lines? How does that square with the Constitution in your view? Why shouldn't the states be able to regulate the content of health insurance sold to folks within their borders?
-
A difference of opinion doesn't imply a lack of familiarity. Do you favor a federal rule allowing folks to obtain insurance policies across state lines? How does that square with the Constitution in your view? Why shouldn't the states be able to regulate the content of health insurance sold to folks within their borders?
It's not that you have a difference of opinion that shows your lack of familiarity.
-
It has long been the role of government to regulate the insurance industry.
We don't care, we want them gone and out of it.
Government is Midas in reverse - everything it touches turns to shit. Everyone they 'help' is made miserable and more impoverished and less served.
Your Beast is a deadly poison needed to be kept in a very small bottle.
-
It's not that you have a difference of opinion that shows your lack of familiarity.
Care to answer my questions?
-
Care to answer my questions?
Jazz, at this point you don't know enough for my answers to make sense to you. Come back when you've read and understood our Constitution.
-
Jazz, at this point you don't know enough for my answers to make sense to you. Come back when you've read and understood our Constitution.
Burn! :beer:
-
It has long been the role of government to regulate the insurance industry. Government has traditionally regulated both the financial integrity of the insurer (e.g., reserve requirements) and the kind of policies that can be sold in a state. Before the ACA, for example, some states required community rating, and others did not.
You seem to object to such regulation at the federal level; do you also object to regulation at the state level? If you favor the rights of the states to regulate - which is my position - what do you think of the conservative proposal to allow insurers to sell their products across state lines, and thereby circumvent state law requirements for quality and content?
The right of them to regulate is one thing, whether or not they should is another.
9 times out of 10 I find the free market is the best regulation device out there.
-
Jazz, at this point you don't know enough for my answers to make sense to you. Come back when you've read and understood our Constitution.
Coward.
-
Coward.
You got that right! I am terrified of the ignorance that people like you exhibit. A republic cannot stand with proudly uninformed citizens.
-
Coward.
Just so you know, @Sanguine is a female of the species, and cannot be easily taunted into responding to your arguments by calling her "chicken." :laugh:
-
Just so you know, @Sanguine is a female of the species, and cannot be easily taunted into responding to your arguments by calling her "chicken." :laugh:
:silly: True dat.
-
Just so you know, @Sanguine is a female of the species, and cannot be easily taunted into responding to your arguments by calling her "chicken." :laugh:
Damn. She schooled him but good.
But then it really wasn't a fair fight. She entered a battle of wits against an unarmed man.
-
Damn. She schooled him but good.
But then it really wasn't a fair fight. She entered a battle of wits against an unarmed man.
What battle? My statement stands, un-contradicted. My understanding of the Constitution is in accord with two centuries worth of jurisprudence. I understand that some conservatives discount the reach of the Commerce Clause. But if that's so - how can you justify the Federal government upending the States' right to regulate insurance within their borders, by forcing the sale of policies across state lines?
-
What battle? My statement stands, un-contradicted. My understanding of the Constitution is in accord with two centuries worth of jurisprudence. I understand that some conservatives discount the reach of the Commerce Clause. But if that's so - how can you justify the Federal government upending the States' right to regulate insurance within their borders, by forcing the sale of policies across state lines?
They wouldn't have to force anything, just offer the option. Let the market decide after that.
-
What battle? My statement stands, un-contradicted. My understanding of the Constitution is in accord with two centuries worth of jurisprudence. I understand that some conservatives discount the reach of the Commerce Clause. But if that's so - how can you justify the Federal government upending the States' right to regulate insurance within their borders, by forcing the sale of policies across state lines?
How about if Fed Gov said they were excluding insurance from their ability to regulate interstate commerce? Each state would then have the ability to regulate what got sold within the state; policy doesn't meet state requirements it doesn't get offered to people within the state. There's no force involved. But no, Congress won't do that because they want their greedy little fingers in everybody's pie.
-
My understanding of the Constitution is in accord with two centuries worth of jurisprudence.
There's your problem right there.
Your view of the Constitution is exactly the same as the Marxist Left's view of the Constitution.
It must be made to be in accord with jurisprudence rather than jurisprudence being in accord with the Constitution.
-
My understanding of the Constitution is in accord with two centuries worth of jurisprudence.
That statement demonstrates why people can't talk to you about the Constitution. You don't believe in the Constitution, you believe in the primacy of the courts over the Constitution. The two world views are simply incompatible.
I don't blame people who know you to just tell you to stuff it rather than listen to you arguing in circles. It's frustrating because you're not listening to them, only to yourself.
-
I don't blame people who know you to just tell you to stuff it rather than listen to you arguing in circles. It's frustrating because you're not listening to them, only to yourself.
It's what Leftists do.
-
How about if Fed Gov said they were excluding insurance from their ability to regulate interstate commerce? Each state would then have the ability to regulate what got sold within the state; policy doesn't meet state requirements it doesn't get offered to people within the state. There's no force involved. But no, Congress won't do that because they want their greedy little fingers in everybody's pie.
That's traditionally been the case. The states have long regulated both the content of insurance policies sold in their states, and the financial solvency of insurers. What frustrates me is that the same "conservatives" who deny the reach of the Constitution's Commerce Clause are the strongest backers of a Federal rule that would allow folks to purchase insurance policies across state lines. Sanguine declares me "uninformed" and "ignorant", but it's blatant hypocrisy to demand that federal rules trump the regulatory regimes that the states have long had in place.
-
That statement demonstrates why people can't talk to you about the Constitution. You don't believe in the Constitution, you believe in the primacy of the courts over the Constitution. The two world views are simply incompatible.
I don't blame people who know you to just tell you to stuff it rather than listen to you arguing in circles. It's frustrating because you're not listening to them, only to yourself.
That's nonsense. Who interprets the Constitution in your fantasy world? Everyone for himself? Judicial review has been our tradition since the Republic's earliest days.
-
That's nonsense. Who interprets the Constitution in your fantasy world? Everyone for himself? Judicial review has been our tradition since the Republic's earliest days.
Ah yes... your Priesthood of Justices who can miraculously find rights not enumerated within the parchment and whom disregard and strike rights enumerated in the parchment as null and void.
Your Priesthood is your constitution, not the actual document ratified as the Supreme Rule of Law in the land. Your Courts are the Supreme Rule in the land.
-
That's nonsense. Who interprets the Constitution in your fantasy world? Everyone for himself? Judicial review has been our tradition since the Republic's earliest days.
That looks a lot like a False Dichotomy there, Mr. Jazz. "If the courts don't decide for us, nobody will and it's chaos." I don't have a ready answer for you, I haven't thought about it (more important hings to do with my life), but I can observe the current method of Tyrants in Robes needs improvement. There is too much deference to Judges, and until we get better ones who respect the document to which they say they swear fealty, it's not going to get better.
Which seems "A-OK" to one who likes those disrespectful decisions. If a Judge decided tomorrow that Philly can't regulate waltzing yahoos with guns, for example, you might change your mind about how wonderful judges are. Pennsylvania state government is, fortunately, coming around about this, as are most states.
-
Ah yes... your Priesthood of Justices who can miraculously find rights not enumerated within the parchment and whom disregard and strike rights enumerated in the parchment as null and void.
Your Priesthood is your constitution, not the actual document ratified as the Supreme Rule of Law in the land. Your Courts are the Supreme Rule in the land.
That's the nub of it right there, @INVAR. Our friend doesn't believe in the Constitution, he believes in the Courts and calls it the same thing.
-
Cruz is the one who's washed up along with this guy, uh, Rick Tyler, that's it. The Cruz-Beck smear machine rolls on but it's pretty well over. We'll see per 2020.