There is no doubt that the New Party’s core would be formed by people who currently label themselves Republican, just as the original Republicans were mostly re-labeled Whigs, or that the new party would pursue much of what the Republicans have purported to pursue, just as the original Republicans pursued much of the old Whigs’ agenda.
The crucial difference, now as 160 years ago, is that the New Party would cast aside its links to the establishment, would incorporate new concerns, and that it would mean what it said.
Were such a New Party to present a presidential candidate in 2020, the only certainty is that the Republican Party’s standard bearer would receive fewer popular votes than either the Democratic Party’s or the New Party’s candidates. Since neither of these two would likely receive a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives would have to choose between them, each state casting one vote.
The majority of states have a majority of Republican Congressmen. Whoever of these voted for the Democrat would cut himself off from his district. Whoever voted for the New Party candidate would thereby be applying for membership.
• Angelo M. Codevilla is professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University.
The GOP currently has a peak of elected officials, federal, state etc. Trump 300+ Electoral votes, 30 states.
Stuff it.Wrong. the GOP is home to Ted Cruz and many other fine conservative Senators, Representatives, Governors etc.
Your party is an enemy to Conservatism and I will use every fiber of my being to end it.
If Conservatism is going to exist in any capacity - it will have to exist outside of the corrupt institution of the Republican party.
Wrong. the GOP is home to Ted Cruz and many other fine conservative Senators, Representatives, Governors etc.
McMullin plus Castle failed to reach 1,000,000 votes or 1% between the two of their efforts.
The GOP currently has a peak of elected officials, federal, state etc. Trump 300+ Electoral votes, 30 states.
But some 3rd/4th party fringe-critters, who currently pride themselves on NOT being Republicans, will amass the money, clout, the skill etc. to replace the GOP. Common sense and logic argues they do not suddenly get smarter or more effective than they recently were.
(According to a retired professor from Boston!)
Reminds me of an Albert King song lyric: "If it wasn't for back luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all."
in this case;
"If it wasn't for bad judgment, I wouldn't have no judgment at all."
Which is exactly how we ended up with Trump: bad judgment.
:bigsilly: :laughingdog:
If Conservatism is going to exist in any capacity - it will have to exist outside of the corrupt institution of the Republican party.
Wrong. the GOP is home to Ted Cruz and many other fine conservative Senators, Representatives, Governors etc.
McMullin plus Castle failed to reach 1,000,000 votes or 1% between the two of their efforts.
Stuff it.
Your party is an enemy to Conservatism and I will use every fiber of my being to end it.
If Conservatism is going to exist in any capacity - it will have to exist outside of the corrupt institution of the Republican party.
@truth_seeker
The gop party in my county has many fine people and it's one of the biggest counties in Florida.
IMO there are two main problems. The leaders at the national level and lack of term limits. People like McCain and Graham lose touch with their constituents.
Replacing it is a ludicrous idea and you'd end up with a deeply flawed party if you even managed to get thousands of people to make the change.
The GOP currently has a peak of elected officials, federal, state etc. Trump 300+ Electoral votes, 30 states.
But some 3rd/4th party fringe-critters, who currently pride themselves on NOT being Republicans, will amass the money, clout, the skill etc. to replace the GOP. Common sense and logic argues they do not suddenly get smarter or more effective than they recently were.
(According to a retired professor from Boston!)
Reminds me of an Albert King song lyric: "If it wasn't for back luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all."
in this case;
"If it wasn't for bad judgment, I wouldn't have no judgment at all."
Stuff it.
Your party is an enemy to Conservatism and I will use every fiber of my being to end it.
If Conservatism is going to exist in any capacity - it will have to exist outside of the corrupt institution of the Republican party.
@truth_seeker
The gop party in my county has many fine people and it's one of the biggest counties in Florida.
IMO there are two main problems. The leaders at the national level and lack of term limits. People like McCain and Graham lose touch with their constituents.
Replacing it is a ludicrous idea and you'd end up with a deeply flawed party if you even managed to get thousands of people to make the change.
... Trump's cult of personality.
Again, the problem seems to be with the US Senate,
States make strides, Governors do well, the US House does fairly well.
And clearly, an opinionated piece, the Times should not call this news.
This is not a straight-up news piece, like let's say "Rep. Scalise leaves the hospital" or "polls say ...." Even the title is as editorial as can be.
I supported Pres. Trump for his unabashed Americanism, his agenda, and his toughness. If you want to characterize that in a negative way, fine. But that doesn't describe me. I'm well aware of his shortcomings; but, I didn't vote for the perfect man, I voted for someone whom I believed spoke for me.
It helped also that I thought he would win against Hillary and her 'rat pack. Turns out I was right.
Again, the problem seems to be with the US Senate,
States make strides, Governors do well, the US House does fairly well.
And clearly, an opinionated piece, the Times should not call this news.
This is not a straight-up news piece, like let's say "Rep. Scalise leaves the hospital" or "polls say ...." Even the title is as editorial as can be.
I've never seen you propose a solution. Only that you are fighting it. If you spent half as much energy helping to make it better you might actually accomplish something.
The GOP currently has a peak of elected officials, federal, state etc. Trump 300+ Electoral votes, 30 states.
I supported Pres. Trump for his unabashed Americanism, his agenda, and his toughness. If you want to characterize that in a negative way, fine. But that doesn't describe me. I'm well aware of his shortcomings; but, I didn't vote for the perfect man, I voted for someone whom I believed spoke for me.
It helped also that I thought he would win against Hillary and her 'rat pack. Turns out I was right.
:bigsilly:
That's all you've got lately, @Oceander
What part of @aligncare 's post did you think hilarious? Pray tell?
And that has done what exactly to move us back from the brink of the Liberals dream of Utopia in America?
Even with those numbers we can't get enough state houses to vote for an Article V convention. By your numbers it should be a cake walk.
Yet here we are being told our best option is to let the Republicans govern as Democrat lite because "it's the only way".
That's right,
McConnell is not a camera or a microphone's friend. He comes across to the public-at-large as a doddering, pitiful voice/face of the GOP.
Jesus.....even car shows know how to do it. No Rosie O'Donnell's in bathing suits and heels walking around that Beemer.
That's all aligncare (and you) merit.
The fact of GOP majorities is not a call for radicalism. It is a call for effective government, grounded in conservative principles, but not radicalism.
An Article V convention is radicalism.
I marvel at the fact the party hacks and liberals here don't bother arguing the merits of Codevilla's essay, but rather do the same stupid and boring shit the Democrats do to anyone that doesn't march in lockstep with them.
Sorry you feel that way.
....NOT! *****rollingeyes*****
I supported Pres. Trump for his unabashed Americanism, his agenda, and his toughness. If you want to characterize that in a negative way, fine. But that doesn't describe me. I'm well aware of his shortcomings; but, I didn't vote for the perfect man, I voted for someone whom I believed spoke for me.
It helped also that I thought he would win against Hillary and her 'rat pack. Turns out I was right.
How's this working out for you now?
It's sad, I'd pray that @Jazzhead and @INVAR may at some time, recognize the Christian values that the Trump administration is trying to follow, rather than negate that idea or call Muslims our friends and neighbors. I'd like to hear that said about Christians.
The crucial difference, now as 160 years ago, is that the New Party would cast aside its links to the establishment, would incorporate new concerns, and that it would mean what it said.
It's sad, I'd pray that @Jazzhead and @INVAR may at some time, recognize the Christian values that the Trump administration is trying to follow, rather than negate that idea or call Muslims our friends and neighbors. I'd like to hear that said about Christians.
What "Christian values"?
My God - I agree with both Txradioguy and INVAR!
Pray tell, TomSea - what Christian values does Donald Trump exemplify?? I see some common ground with conservative values - but his connection with Christianity eludes me.
My God - I agree with both Txradioguy and INVAR!
Pray tell, TomSea - what Christian values does Donald Trump exemplify?? I see some common ground with conservative values - but his connection with Christianity eludes me.
I supported Pres. Trump for his unabashed Americanism, his agenda, and his toughness. If you want to characterize that in a negative way, fine. But that doesn't describe me, I'm well aware of his shortcomings. But, I didn't vote for the perfect man, I voted for someone whom I believed spoke for me.
It helped also that I thought he would win against Hillary and her 'rat pack. Turns out I was right.
I supported Pres. Trump for his unabashed Americanism, his agenda, and his toughness. If you want to characterize that in a negative way, fine. But that doesn't describe me, I'm well aware of his shortcomings. But, I didn't vote for the perfect man, I voted for someone whom I believed spoke for me.
It helped also that I thought he would win against Hillary and her 'rat pack. Turns out I was right.
Agreed. It is frustrating to see the GOP fail to capitalize on its majorities in Congress and in state governments, but the solution isn't nihilism. The GOP remains in the ascendency, and THE platform for those who favor conservative and Constitutionalist policies. It is, however, like any large party, a coalition, and that typically compels compromise and incremental change rather than that of the revolutionary variety.
The party's resiliency is apparent; within the last decade it has undergone two "counterrevolutions" to Reaganism, first the TEA party and most recently the Trump phenomenon - two movements without, it would appear, a whole lot in common, yet the party now claims the majority of seats at the national and state levels.
The party's current difficulties have little to do with the fundamental soundness of conservative ideas, but rather with the predictable reaction to Trump's cult of personality. Trump commands loyalty and the ability to articulate a clear, simple set of priorities, but the trajectory of his Presidency has been one of extreme polarization. In any normal year, the GOP in Congress would have been able to reform the ACA, but with unified Democratic opposition triangulation has become impossible and GOP leadership has unable (except for Gorsuch) to achieve the absolute unanimity required to pass legislation in the face of such opposition.
A third party movement to replace the GOP would be destruction for its own sake, and a pivotal victory for liberalism.
Unabashed Americanism? Has he brought his manufacturing jobs (his line of clothing etc) back on US soil yet? If he did I missed it. He gives a lot of lip service to Americanism but I havent seen him put his money where his mouth is.
Putting Trump and Hillary side by side.....who's the "Unabashed Americanism" candidate/POTUS?
Instead, of picking on something so petty, one must compare today's economic and environmental policies with the past eight years and then under a Hillary Clinton administration.
And if you STILL can't 'see' the truth in @aligncare 's post....then you need to address what's keeping you from it.
If the GOP is in ascendency and is THE platform for conservatives, then why praytell does it do nothing to advance the conservative agenda? They control the white house, senate, house and a majority of the governorships but have failed to pass any of the conservative agenda. That leaves 2 conclusions. They are either not really conservative, or they are ineffective. I tend to think both are true.
@Mom MD
Good question and I think its because its led by globalists. They have gotten the majority based on conservative candidates with traditional American ideals but those candidates don't hold the reins. Its people like McCain, McConnell, Ryan that need to be replaced. Many of the leaders at the local level believe in the conservative agenda. I've spoken with some of them and know it first hand.
If the GOP is in ascendency and is THE platform for conservatives, then why praytell does it do nothing to advance the conservative agenda? They control the white house, senate, house and a majority of the governorships but have failed to pass any of the conservative agenda. That leaves 2 conclusions. They are either not really conservative, or they are ineffective. I tend to think both are true.
@Mom MD
Good question and I think its because its led by globalists. They have gotten the majority based on conservative candidates with traditional American ideals but those candidates don't hold the reins. Its people like McCain, McConnell, Ryan that need to be replaced. Many of the leaders at the local level believe in the conservative agenda. I've spoken with some of them and know it first hand.
It may not work, but supporting a party that no longer supports us is not working out so well either.
Exactly. The leaders of the party are not conservative. Therefore the party is no longer conservative. I would love it if real conservatives could take our ball and go play somewhere else. It may not work, but supporting a party that no longer supports us is not working out so well either.
@INVAR
I've never seen you propose a solution. Only that you are fighting it. If you spent half as much energy helping to make it better you might actually accomplish something.
Exactly and Amen Mom.
@Mom MD
I think thats overstating it. The party is not just the leaders but is a compilation of all the members. Is it off course, yes. Has it been corrupted, certainly. But there is no other place to play ball. At least nothing that has a hope of actually making a difference.
Its easy to get conservatives to fight. This place demonstrates that on a daily basis. While we are fighting with each other they continue to push their globalist agenda.
I think its time to stand up and take it back. Get rid of the liars like Ryan.
Is it off course, yes. Has it been corrupted, certainly. But there is no other place to play ball. At least nothing that has a hope of actually making a difference.
I think its time to stand up and take it back. Get rid of the liars like Ryan.
@INVAR
And what is YOUR solution?
The party's resiliency is apparent; within the last decade it has undergone two "counterrevolutions" to Reaganism, first the TEA party and most recently the Trump phenomenon - two movements without, it would appear, a whole lot in common, yet the party now claims the majority of seats at the national and state levels.
Exactly. The leaders of the party are not conservative. Therefore the party is no longer conservative. I would love it if real conservatives could take our ball and go play somewhere else. It may not work, but supporting a party that no longer supports us is not working out so well either.
This is so tiresome. How long are those opposed to the Republican Party going to indulge their need to swim in the spit of self-righteous anger?
What the hell do you propose? And what's your plan for turning your proposal into a successful and meaningful reality?
We're listening.
This is so tiresome. How long are those opposed to the Republican Party going to indulge their need to swim in the spit of self-righteous anger?
What the hell do you propose? And what's your plan for turning your proposal into a successful and meaningful reality?
We're listening.
Trump and the Republican party have *NOTHING* in common with the TEA party or with Reagan.
This is so tiresome. How long are those opposed to the Republican Party going to indulge their need to swim in the spit of self-righteous anger?
What the hell do you propose? And what's your plan for turning your proposal into a successful and meaningful reality?
We're listening.
Putting Trump and Hillary side by side.....who's the "Unabashed Americanism" candidate/POTUS?
Your post recalled for me an oft repeated proverb: Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
If the GOP is in ascendency and is THE platform for conservatives, then why praytell does it do nothing to advance the conservative agenda? They control the white house, senate, house and a majority of the governorships but have failed to pass any of the conservative agenda. That leaves 2 conclusions. They are either not really conservative, or they are ineffective. I tend to think both are true.
The answer is neither. Because of unbending Dem resistance, the GOP must achieve near-unanimity to pass legislation on its own. Getting 50 Senators to agree on complex legislation is easier said than done. But you'd prefer to disown the GOP, thinking that acting like a drama queen will somehow achieve results amenable to conservatives. That's simply nuts, and a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Your post recalled for me an oft repeated proverb: Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
Your post recalled for me an oft repeated proverb: Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
Im the furthest thing from a drama queen but thanks for the compliment. And you would love conservatives to continue supporting the party as it is, because it upholds all your values and agenda. As far as needing 50 senators to agree - the democrats can and do do it all the time because they practice discipline and stick to the party line. The republicans could do that if they actually wanted to pass a conservative agenda. But since the party is no longer conservative, they will never stick together to pass a conservative agenda - you may as well ask the democrats to enact law to make abortion illegal. The republican party is not conservative and does not represent those that are. Period.
And you would love conservatives to continue supporting the party as it is, because it upholds all your values and agenda.
Im the furthest thing from a drama queen but thanks for the compliment.
A lot of us are through with returning to the abuser hoping they will treat us better next time.
What could be done if Republicans had the zeal for their principles that democrats do?
Neither one.
Of course we have zeal for our principles. But not all Republicans adhere to the principles of the social conservative right. The GOP is a coalition among different flavors of conservatives - hell, there's even a few main street conservatives left like me among the TEA party nihilists and the government-loving Bible obsessives.
So the GOP is at the height of its power and influence, and there are still calls to break up the band. Sheer madness, if you ask me. If I can put up with the social conservatives for the greater good, why can't social conservatives put up with folks like me?
You are a drama queen extraordinaire, and I cannot take what you say seriously. But go on, join the Constitution party and marginalize yourself. We need pragmatic conservatives in the GOP, ones willing to compromise when necessary with centrists, not those who want to take their marbles and go home because the GOP cannot exert "party discipline" to keep all 50 Senators in line for YOUR social conservative agenda.
Of course we have zeal for our principles. But not all Republicans adhere to the principles of the social conservative right. The GOP is a coalition among different flavors of conservatives - hell, there's even a few main street conservatives left like me among the TEA party nihilists and the government-loving Bible obsessives.
So the GOP is at the height of its power and influence, and there are still calls to break up the band. Sheer madness, if you ask me. If I can put up with the social conservatives for the greater good, why can't social conservatives put up with folks like me?
Of course we have zeal for our principles. But not all Republicans adhere to the principles of the social conservative right. The GOP is a coalition among different flavors of conservatives - hell, there's even a few main street conservatives left like me among the TEA party nihilists and the government-loving Bible obsessives.
So the GOP is at the height of its power and influence, and there are still calls to break up the band. Sheer madness, if you ask me. If I can put up with the social conservatives for the greater good, why can't social conservatives put up with folks like me?
Sure if I had my choice neither of them would have been candidates let alone President. However, that is what we ended up with. So we can make lemonade or back off and pout and dream of a utopia where the children of socialist indoctrination suddenly realize the fallacy of what they believe.
I think we are all well aware now that you've got some mad hate for social conservatives. Why should social conservatives trust and work with folks like you who are willing to compromise away the beliefs that you hate?
He also doesn't seem to understand that TEA party Conservatives are more closely aligned to the principals of Reagan than anyone in the party.
This is so tiresome. How long are those opposed to the Republican Party going to indulge their need to swim in the spit of self-righteous anger?
What the hell do you propose? And what's your plan for turning your proposal into a successful and meaningful reality?
We're listening.
In my case, no longer having any official position within the party frees me to speak my mind on ANY subject at any time and that is EXACTLY what I intend to do!
Jazzy is more of a McConnell style Republican.
Sure if I had my choice neither of them would have been candidates let alone President. However, that is what we ended up with. So we can make lemonade or back off and pout and dream of a utopia where the children of socialist indoctrination suddenly realize the fallacy of what they believe.
@Mom MD I always take your insightful posts serious, unless your being funny.
You are a drama queen extraordinaire, and I cannot take what you say seriously. But go on, join the Constitution party and marginalize yourself. We need pragmatic conservatives in the GOP, ones willing to compromise when necessary with centrists, not those who want to take their marbles and go home because the GOP cannot exert "party discipline" to keep all 50 Senators in line for YOUR social conservative agenda.
@Jazzhead
Sorry, but you're not main street conservative. I realize the media has redefined the meaning of Up and Down but cmon man you are left of center.
No. He's not.
He's more of a Susan Collins "Republican" if even that. He is absolutely no Conservative of any stripe given his posting history here.
He has more in common with liberal Communist Democrats than anyone even now in the GOP.
You are a drama queen extraordinaire, and I cannot take what you say seriously. But go on, join the Constitution party and marginalize yourself. We need pragmatic conservatives in the GOP, ones willing to compromise when necessary with centrists, not those who want to take their marbles and go home because the GOP cannot exert "party discipline" to keep all 50 Senators in line for YOUR social conservative agenda.
I pledge eternal hostility to every form of liberal Statism that attempts to dilute or diminish Conservatism. ...
As Codevilla rightfully notes - it is time for your party to go the way of the Whigs, and I intend to make sure that happens.
Good @Bigun. Although in all candor, I wasn't aware you were holding back. :laugh:@Right_in_Virginia
But how does this translate into votes? You know ... those pesky things we need enough of to be in a position to govern and affect change?
Good @Bigun. Although in all candor, I wasn't aware you were holding back. :laugh:
But how does this translate into votes? You know ... those pesky things we need enough of to be in a position to govern and affect change?
Okay, you make sure the Republican Party goes the way of the Whigs....indulge in another crusade of indignation, self-absorption and faux fury further alienating conservatives from American voters. It's sure to work this time.
I AM lighting a candle... in the Constitution Party.
[...] their chances of winning remain virtually impossible. This is reality.
That depends entirely upon one's definition of 'winning'.
I certainly do not suppose that supporting Republican liberalism is winning in any sense.
That's reality.
By definition of winning I am ultimately referring to winning the Presidency of the United States.
Conservatives do not support a monarchy or imperial presidency - despite the fact the vast majority of the population and both party leaderships do.
As we have had shoved right into our faces, 'winning the presidency', the House and Senate is worthless and useless as far as furthering Conservative principles with the GOP.
As we have had shoved right into our faces, 'winning the presidency', the House and Senate is worthless and useless as far as furthering Conservative principles with the GOP.
Conservatives do not support a monarchy or imperial presidency - despite the fact the vast majority of the population and both party leaderships do.
As we have had shoved right into our faces, 'winning the presidency', the House and Senate is worthless and useless as far as furthering Conservative principles with the GOP.
Exactly right. 'winning' is the culmination of years of the 'lesser evil'... A liberal Republican in a chaotic, will-o-wisp White House, and a toothless Congress that can't find it's ass with either hand.
That's what winning for winning's sake brings.
True winning is something that advances one's principles, not popularity and pragmatism.
We have the most pro-life President ever.
A pro-life justice. Power turned back to the states to defund planned parenthood, planned parenthood defunded if not for the Senate. International agencies defunded $12 billion dollars. Trump has done well with the Evangelical vote.
Definitely not what I was implying whatsoever. Those in the House and Senate are very valuable in further conservative principles within the GOP. IMHO right now those conservative governors and conservatives congressmen at the state level are in large party who's holding this country together This article is referencing replacing the party. I'm merely pointing out that they have to be replaced with someone; someone willing to take their seats once vacated. There is no guarantee that the same politician vacating a seat would win under a different party. I've seen a couple instances where just the opposite has taken place.
You're freaking delusional and your propaganda is meaningless.
We know Trump is your political messiah.
He is not ours, and neither is the party he infiltrated and made his own.
It is time to separate and be done with them. You're arguing the same thing the Loyalists were back in the 1770s.
No more Olive Branch Petitions. No more prostrations before the leadership. No more trying to 'work within the system to change it'.
It is diseased and corrupt to the core. There is no saving it without further spreading the infection to others.
http://home.conservativepartyusa.org/And there were the parties of McMuffin, and of Castle.
There are conservative parties in New York, New Jersey, Virginia and S. Carolina. In New York it splits between endorsing Republican candidates and running its own, mostly the former.
I will accept your vitriolic words and personal attacks if it furthers the pro-life cause. I see you said nothing on the issue but just glossed over them.
I consider myself a pro-lifer and object heartily to your saying he is my messiah. Trump won the Evangelical vote big time.
You're freaking delusional and your propaganda is meaningless.
Pro-Life Conservatives do, President Trump has already made accomplishments in this and Planned Parenthood would have been defunded had the Senate had it together.
There is no proof that you are speaking for conservatism.
The OP has absolutely NOTHING to do with abortion or Trump's position on it. You said NOTHING in regards to the OP Codevilla wrote.
You are not hijacking my thread with your ad nauseum pontifications about Trump being the messiah for the unborn.
Your own words and pandering about Trump as some kind of warrior for the unborn hardly belay my assertion. You bought into a false prophet.
I will accept your vitriolic words and personal attacks if it furthers the pro-life cause. I see you said nothing on the issue but just glossed over them. It is your position that is dubious. I consider myself a pro-lifer and object heartily to your saying he is my messiah. Trump won the Evangelical vote big time.
Right now it translates into a lack of votes and no mandate.A poll I saw recently, 15% of self-identifying "conservatives," voted for Hillary. So that overused word, means many things to different people.
How else to explain a 'winning' 26% of the population where well more than 60% of that total population declares itself Conservative?
There are far more Conservatives standing outside of the Republican party than in it.
If it were about votes, y'all would be serving Conservatism.
A poll I saw recently, 15% of self-identifying "conservatives," voted for Hillary. So that overused word, means many things to different people.
Repeat a lie often enough. **nononono*
An alternative to the Republican party will take time. I probably won't see it in my lifetime. I don't even know if we could get to the point of enough votes for the federal matching funding, which IMO is the first crucial step.
So, pick the slightly worse choice (do what's "best" for ME), or vote principle even though I'll never see the end result? It's a tough choice.
I will say there's only one side that thinks insulting me is going to win me over, and that's having the exact opposite effect.
I will accept your vitriolic words and personal attacks if it furthers the pro-life cause. I see you said nothing on the issue but just glossed over them. It is your position that is dubious. I consider myself a pro-lifer and object heartily to your saying he is my messiah. Trump won the Evangelical vote big time.
Excuse me, this Codevilla is asserting the GOP needs to be replaced.
They are the biggest political pro-life supporters around, so if this idiot Codevilla says the GOP should be replaced, then, he should have to deal with it.
First you tried bullying, then personal attacks and now you are showing cowardice by trying to say it is off-topic. Sorry, the mods can tell me that if that is so. I won't take your words for it.
There is no reason to believe you are a Conservative.
You sound just like Obama. You must break the system if you want to rebuild it. At least he realizes that if you break our existing system it sure won't be replaced with one adhering to Constitutional provisions.
@txradioguy
You don't have rubbish, so you do a personal attack.
Seeing the other fake conservatives, you may be applauded but it doesn't change the fact,
Trump is prolife and many voters voted for that and Trump has excelled at that.
There is no reason to believe you are a Conservative.
@TomSea
I don't understand why you hitch your wagon to that position. There is very little evidence that he is pro-life. In fact there is a lot of evidence (video) showing that he is pro-abortion. Perhaps he's changing in recent times but there is little record to show.
So why do you keep pushing this?
@TomSea
I don't understand why you hitch your wagon to that position. There is very little evidence that he is pro-life. In fact there is a lot of evidence (video) showing that he is pro-abortion. Perhaps he's changing in recent times but there is little record to show.
So why do you keep pushing this?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alveda-king-and-frank-pavone-trumps-first-100-days-are-the-best-pro-life-100-days-ever/article/2621518
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,260826.0.html
Dr. Martin Luther King's daughter and Father Frank Pavone, both known pro-lifers, say Trump's first 100 days most pro-life ever for a President. I will take their word.
And again, the right to life is part of the national gop platform and in almost all of the states, I don't see how any topic could be less on topic.
So folks whom never speak in the dedicated life news forum are saying Trump's not pro-life? It should have been debated long ago and plenty of articles are there.
The concern is not only that everything Trump touches may be seen in a worse light for being associated with this man whose administration is going down in flames. It is that this man bragged, in the most vulgar terms, about his ability to seduce married women and displayed his misogyny in many different ways. He said he thought women who procure abortions should go to jail. If Mr. Trump is presented as a pro-life champion, the pro-life movement is about to be set back years, and we will have people like Pence and Anderson to blame for it.
It is time to separate and be done with them. You're arguing the same thing the Loyalists were back in the 1770s.
No more Olive Branch Petitions. No more prostrations before the leadership. No more trying to 'work within the system to change it'.
It is diseased and corrupt to the core. There is no saving it without further spreading the infection to others.
Stuff it.
Your party is an enemy to Conservatism and I will use every fiber of my being to end it.
If Conservatism is going to exist in any capacity - it will have to exist outside of the corrupt institution of the Republican party.
I will respect pro-life leaders over yours. Do you not read the news?
We are not talking about being empty pro-lifers like some senators who get nothing done.
To heck with some video from 2001 that shows something.
Trump has defunded International Planned Parenthood by $12 billion dollars. That is not chump change.
Trump nominated Gorsuch who was confirmed to the SCOTUS,
Pro-Life groups applaud that, that is in the Lifenews section if you ever read that section.
Trump gave states the right back to defund Planned Parenthood.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/board,107.0.html
One can read this forum, the Life News forum. I don't see why this should all be confirmed.
And despite the pro-life proclamations of some politicians, Trump's actions surely exceed their words.
Trump most unlikely anti-abortion President ever
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-unlikely-pro-life-549375
The proof is in the results, not with only, someone proclaiming in a debate how pro-life they are though that is good too.
@TomSea here we go again. This is a discussion about whether there is a need for a replacement for the Republican Party. It is not about whether or not Trump is a pro life President or not.
It's clear to everyone that you do this on purpose.
Continue to thread jack and purposely take this discussion off topic and you'll sit in the corner, again.
Same goes for any thought you might have about arguing with me about what I just told you.
That goes for anyone that wants to continue down this line of discussion and not stick to the topic.
Wrong. the GOP is home to Ted Cruz and many other fine conservative Senators, Representatives, Governors etc.
Which is exactly how we ended up with Trump: bad judgment.
How's this working out for you now?
Nearly seven in ten evangelicals voted for Trump. That doesn't look too good for values voters, does it?
@truth_seeker
People like McCain and Graham lose touch with their constituents.
@INVAR
I've never seen you propose a solution. Only that you are fighting it. If you spent half as much energy helping to make it better you might actually accomplish something.
@Right_in_Virginia
How is it working out for those of you who choose to remain loyal the the Party of Bush?
The EXISTING political party IS ALREADY BROKEN. I'm not talking about "breaking the system" unless the current paradigm of "vote for the lesser Liberal" is how you define "the system". I'm in agreement with Angelo Codevilla, who is now persona non grata from GOP party hacks who masquerade as Conservatives. Codevilla was once a celebrated Conservative's Conservative by the same party hacks now trashing him and his essay.
The GOP is CORRUPT, and IRREDEEMABLE and serves the imposition of tyranny and Statism under the color of law.
I'm not advocating tearing the GOP down and rebuilding it. Their leadership rewrote the rules to prohibit any challenge to their perpetual corrupt rulership of the party
I'm advocating Conservatives separate from it, regard it as just another party of Liberalism and build a new party outside the cesspool of DC.
The incumbents at the national level often run unopposed; therein lies the real problem. The second problem is that there are people like McConnell and Ryan who do everything they can to ensure that the incumbents remain unopposed; they don't want their country club disrupted.
Yes. It's all about location, location, location. If one is raised in a liberal enclave in liberal schools, chances are they will turn out liberal.
Out of 26% of the population. That's a whole helluva lot more evangelicals that didn't vote at all.
Like NYC?
Non voters really don't count for much in politics. If one doesn't bother to vote he has no right to complain.
Fact is 68% of bible-believing voted for Trump. No small potatoes.
@libertybele
Add that the incumbents and their party backers work harder to destroy any challengers to their seats than they do to defeat Dims,and there you have it,all wrapped up in a ball.
First and foremost with them,it's more about party than it is country.
Non voters really don't count for much in politics. If one doesn't bother to vote he has no right to complain.Exit polls do not measure nonvoters. Here is a big national "Exit Poll" of actual voters.
Fact is 68% of bible-believing voted for Trump. No small potatoes.
Non voters really don't count for much in politics. If one doesn't bother to vote he has no right to complain.
Fact is 68% of bible-believing voted for Trump. No small potatoes.
@TomSea here we go again. This is a discussion about whether there is a need for a replacement for the Republican Party. It is not about whether or not Trump is a pro life President or not.
It's clear to everyone that you do this on purpose.
Continue to thread jack and purposely take this discussion off topic and you'll sit in the corner, again.
Same goes for any thought you might have about arguing with me about what I just told you.
That goes for anyone that wants to continue down this line of discussion and not stick to the topic.
Non voters really don't count for much in politics. If one doesn't bother to vote he has no right to complain.
Fact is 68% of bible-believing voted for Trump. No small potatoes.
IF we no longer work within the system to change it, then the DEM and the GOP party would have to be dissolved completely and the DNC and RNC dissolved as well. You cannot replace the existing GOP party without dissolving it and displacing its members; including the voting population.
So ... new parties emerging are going to change things? IMHO as long as the 'ideals and values' of those parties are still entrenched in the voting populace, they will vote for similar candidates/parties regardless if they have new players and a new name.
Also, you would still have the liberal school system and other liberal entities in tact that have brainwashed our youth. You still have the globalists like Soros and the Clintons who would see the demise of the GOP waiting in the wings jumping with glee at a golden opportunity to fulfill their agenda.
Then there's that pesky U.S. Constitution...would that still be the supreme law of the land?
Basically dismantling the two party system is dismantling how we as a country vote as that system as evolved over the course of time.
I'm trying to understand some of the logic here. Wiping out the entire existing GOP would dismiss everyone in government from the President on down to the GOP governors and those seated in the GOP state seats. They would all need to be replaced with the new members willing to form a new party ... the DEM party would still be in tact and the opportunity for them to expand would be enormous.
You are assuming that the majority of the current GOP voting base want to see the GOP dissolved.
I want to see the GOP go back to it's original principles.
I question what happens as a result of that implosion; it doesn't necessarily mean that the new party will be any better.
@JazzheadQuoteThe party's resiliency is apparent; within the last decade it has undergone two "counterrevolutions" to Reaganism, first the TEA party and most recently the Trump phenomenon - two movements without, it would appear, a whole lot in common, yet the party now claims the majority of seats at the national and state levels.
Yes,and the party survives by absorbing those rebels within the party,and making sure they are marginalized and never gain any real power.
An example of this is Walter Jones,JR,Republican congresscritter from NC. I read a web report on him while he was running for re-election once where he went to Camp LeJune in NC (it's in his district) while Boy Jorge was beating the drums for yet another American military intervention into one or another of the Shitstainastands,and stood up there on his hind feet in front of all those Marines and told them he was against it and WHY he was against it. He got a standing ovation,yet as far as I can tell it was never reported anywhere but the Camp LeJune and Jacksonville area.
In all the years he has been in Congress he has been consistently conservative as near as I can tell,yet how many of you have even heard of him? When was the last time ANY of you heard of or seen him appear on one of the Sunday political gabfests? The correct number is "Never". Jones can't buy time to appear on any of those shows because he does not play along with the pretend game they are running.QuoteThe party's current difficulties have little to do with the fundamental soundness of conservative ideas, but rather with the predictable reaction to Trump's cult of personality.
HorseHillary! The party's "current difficulties" are the same ones they have had ever since they helped the Dims stab Barry Goldwater in the back. They are Republicans only because there were no openings in the Dim Party when they wanted to run for office,or they live in districts where they had to run as a Republican to get elected.
Trying to blame it on Trump is beneath you. You are smarter than that. Trump is the flashing neon sign that voters who are genuine conservatives are fed up with "business as usual". Trump is the beneficiary,not the reason. I voted for him for 2 reasons. The first being that he was running against Bubbette!,and the second being that he seemed to be running against "business as usual". I WANTED a bomb-thrower in the WH because that is what we need,not somebody that will go along to get along.QuoteTrump commands loyalty and the ability to articulate a clear, simple set of priorities, but the trajectory of his Presidency has been one of extreme polarization.
That's like saying the best way to have won WW-2 was to just "Get along with the Nazi's and Imperial Japan. Maybe even ask for a few group hugs." YOU DO NOT CHANGE THINGS BY AGREEING WITH THOSE YOU OPPOSE.
BTW,who was that politician that went on tv to stutter out "Caaa....n't we just getttttt....along?" a couple of decades ago? The name escapes me now.
QuoteIn any normal year, the GOP in Congress would have been able to reform the ACA,
Irrelevant,since they have no actual interest in reforming anything.QuoteA third party movement to replace the GOP would be destruction for its own sake,
I agree as far as the part I quoted goes,but please tell me HOW things could possibly be worse. We haven't had a President that wasn't a traitor since Reagan left office. HOW are things going to get better if we just do more of what we have been doing ever since he left office?
The GOP currently has a peak of elected officials, federal, state etc. Trump 300+ Electoral votes, 30 states.
But some 3rd/4th party fringe-critters, who currently pride themselves on NOT being Republicans, will amass the money, clout, the skill etc. to replace the GOP. Common sense and logic argues they do not suddenly get smarter or more effective than they recently were.
(According to a retired professor from Boston!)
Reminds me of an Albert King song lyric: "If it wasn't for back luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all."
in this case;
"If it wasn't for bad judgment, I wouldn't have no judgment at all."
Exit polls do not measure nonvoters. Here is a big national "Exit Poll" of actual voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016
It found 81% of self-identifying "White evangelical or born-again Christian" voted for Trump.
It also has many other findings, often different from frequently cited versions here. One finding is white college graduates voted for Trump, opposite of one of the early smears f Trump voters as being uneducated hics.
It is worth reading the findings, under the heading "Voter Demographics.".
There are only a handful of select Senators and Congressmen worth a damn and who are actually doing their jobs; that is a given.
Running and winning third party is nearly impossible. I am not saying that a 3rd party candidate can't win, only that qualifying to get onto the ballot in each state is more difficult and more costly for a 3rd party candidate as that is the way that the 'system' has been set up over time. Those roadblocks and hurdles have to be overcome first before a 3rd party candidate would even have a remote chance along with changing the the 'stigma' that is associated with being a 3rd party candidate and the mindset of the voting public that a 3rd party candidate cannot win. As I have stated previously, it would take an exodus of existing politicians such as Cruz, Lee, Paul, Meadows, Amash, Brat, etc.. to move to an established 3rd party (i.e., Constitution party) or create their own in order for there to be a chance at a 3rd party win. Keep in mind that our current President has so far rejected working with those conservatives and he still maintains his base that won him the election. The other scenario that I see is that a movement of a powerful group of people (such as a shadow government) that has been working in the background for some time forming a 3rd party, and I'm not so sure that is a 3rd party that we're going to like.
QuoteAnd that has done what exactly to move us back from the brink of the Liberals dream of Utopia in America?
@truth_seeker @txradioguy
The term "Putting lipstick on a pig" seems to be appropriate here.QuoteEven with those numbers we can't get enough state houses to vote for an Article V convention. By your numbers it should be a cake walk.
Yet here we are being told our best option is to let the Republicans govern as Democrat lite because "it's the only way".
There it is! You/I/all of us could "sort of" agree with that if it were new,but it has been the alleged Republican mantra ever since the Bush Crime Family first ran for the presidency. Seen any massive moves to conservatism since Poppy took office?
And that has done what exactly to move us back from the brink of the Liberals dream of Utopia in America?
Even with those numbers we can't get enough state houses to vote for an Article V convention. By your numbers it should be a cake walk.
Yet here we are being told our best option is to let the Republicans govern as Democrat lite because "it's the only way".
Which all means that even though 75 percent (a number I pulled out of my ass) of the people who self-identify as conservatives will be VERY reluctant to leave what they know and are comfortable bitching about for a party that has no history,and more than anything else,politics is a number game.
IF the nation is lucky,we MIGHT see weasels like Lady Lindsey,the entire Bush Crime Family,McLunatic,and the rest of the RINO's decide to form a new party so they can stay in control of SOMETHING and keep the graft and cash payoffs for treason flowing,and a new Conservative political party will arise with people in leadership as well as just Party Member positions working towards creating an actual Constitutional government that recognizes that people have responsibilities as citizens,as well as rights.
The only people with the power to really make changes are the voters,and clearly they just can't be bothered.
But he has the power...and that's what counts. He controls the money...he decides who gets it for their re-election and who doesn't.
Just look at how he's doing things down in Alabama and how he acted like a Mob Boss in Mississippi and Kentucky in 2014.
Until there is a serious campaign to oust him and send him back to Kentucky...not much is going to change in the U.S. Senate.
The reality is Mitch runs the place much in the same way Dingy Harry Reid did.
Country was Founded upon "Christian Values". Constitution was written surely with "Christian Values".
Just steering the country back to the Constitution and enforcing current immigration laws are exemplification of those values.
Oh really? Explain 1854 then.
Again, explain 1854 then.
Read some history and learn what happened to the Whig part and why. The OP in the link discusses it.
The EXISTING political party IS ALREADY BROKEN. I'm not talking about "breaking the system" unless the current paradigm of "vote for the lesser Liberal" is how you define "the system". I'm in agreement with Angelo Codevilla, who is now persona non grata from GOP party hacks who masquerade as Conservatives. Codevilla was once a celebrated Conservative's Conservative by the same party hacks now trashing him and his essay.
The GOP is CORRUPT, and IRREDEEMABLE and serves the imposition of tyranny and Statism under the color of law.
I'm not advocating tearing the GOP down and rebuilding it. Their leadership rewrote the rules to prohibit any challenge to their perpetual corrupt rulership of the party
I'm advocating Conservatives separate from it, regard it as just another party of Liberalism and build a new party outside the cesspool of DC.
One more off topic post and there will be people going to sit in the corner for awhile like the spoiled brats they are.
There are members who are purposely trying to shut this thread down. To those replying to @TomSea @truth_seeker or @aligncare on anything that is not related to the OP stop. They are purposely luring you into an off topic debate to try and insulate themselves from punishment for ignoring my previous warning.
Unless you'd like to join them, quit feeding the trolls.
Sure if I had my choice neither of them would have been candidates let alone President. However, that is what we ended up with. So we can make lemonade or back off and pout and dream of a utopia where the children of socialist indoctrination suddenly realize the fallacy of what they believe.
I think that will happen ... he may be the most hated man in America.
Obviously, you missed several posts.
It has been suggested here that conservatism is in the ascendancy and that a lot of states, successful ones, are run by Republicans.
Perfect Republicans? Of course not. But better than the Dems who have bankrupted and destroyed the states they run.
We don't need to go outside the party to find conservatives.
@INVAR
You sound just like Obama. You must break the system if you want to rebuild it. At least he realizes that if you break our existing system it sure won't be replaced with one adhering to Constitutional provisions.
@driftdiver
WHEN was the last time ANYONE made something better by voting/asking for more of the same?
You can be the most hated man in America...and as long as you control the money and the committee assignments you can insulate yourself from any type of internal revolt or move to oust you from power.
@DCPatriot
Just because a lie is popular and often repeated,doesn't mean it's not a lie. Neither the Christian or any other religion I know of promotes or rewards free speech and thought. You either agree with the dogma,or the leadership condemns you to an eternity of torture.
On the other hand the US Constitution is all about the state enforcing and protecting the right of individuals to live their lives freely without government intervention as long as they are not harming anyone else.
We,as a nation do seem to have wandered a bit,haven't we?
16 Founding Fathers' Quotes
George Washington
1st U.S. President
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty...
"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
Ok. That clarifies things a little for me ... which still though brings me back to me point originally; unless you have a 3rd party candidate with a lot of money behind him and significant name recognition they will not win over the other two parties. The voting population would also need to get over the stigma associated with 3rd party voting. That's reality. The DC cesspool exists and we're never going to fix it from the top.
Disgraceful namecalling by @MOD3 , calling people Trollls and the lie that people are going off topic noted.
But that's now. Congress critters have some self-interest and they will eventually see that continuing to keep McConnell in power is not helping them or the party.
One more off topic post and there will be people going to sit in the corner for awhile like the spoiled brats they are.
There are members who are purposely trying to shut this thread down. To those replying to @TomSea @truth_seeker or @aligncare on anything that is not related to the OP stop. They are purposely luring you into an off topic debate to try and insulate themselves from punishment for ignoring my previous warning.
Unless you'd like to join them, quit feeding the trolls.
QuoteIronic, isn't it. Obama broke the system but he left out the second part.
@Emjay
Bathhouse Barry didn't even break the system. He is nothing more than an idiot savant that happened to be the "right color" that spoke good English and could read the words written for him,even if he didn't know what they meant. If he didn't have a skin color protected from criticism,he would be known as the dumbest MoFo to ever occupy the Oval Office,and a worse president than Jimmy Carter,which is taking in some seriously incompetent territory.QuoteOne thing Trump is not given credit for is the mess he inherited and a lot of those swamp critters are still around. They will be weeded out but it will take time.
Of course not. The mainstream media and the talking heads can't mention that without admitting their heroes and pals were and are responsible for it all.
@sneakypete
Who is asking for more of the same?
What McConnell has done is scare off any serious political challenges to his power in DC. He's openly supporting people who will vote the way he wants and threatening those who won't and even the consulting and ad agencies that might be employed by primary challengers with being blackballed if they work for anyone but a McConnell approved candidate.
When you poison the well in that fashion...you open the door for the anti Conservatives...RINO's GOPe whatever you want to call them to call the tune.
The only self interest most Congress Critters have is in getting re elected and seeing their name favorably mentioned in the WaPo and NYT.
If their self interest was truly in serving their people back home that sent them to office...there wouldn't be the need of even talking in a joking manner about a replacement for the Republican Party.
Every post of mine has been strictly on the subject. No personal attacks, no name calling.
...(a number I pulled out of my ass)...
Even if your cynicism is justified, it is in the self-interest of the Congress to get rid of a man who is dragging the whole congress down
*ahem*
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,277877.msg1428707.html#msg1428707
Doesn't have much to do with the topic.
Just sayin...
QuoteThe Founding Fathers in plenty of instances, said our nation is based on Christian principles, that, iow and not to put words in their mouth, we are a Christian nation. Again, I will go with the words of Our Founding Fathers, such as John Adams and George Washington.
What else would you have them say in public in a time when saying you didn't believe in God could mean being locked up in jail,and then shunned by everyone in business so you couldn't make a living.
The one thing Karl Marx was right about is religion being the opiate of the masses. Jefferson and the others may have been educated men with a broad viewpoint on life,but they still had to "sell" the idea of independence and revolution to a mostly illiterate and superstitious crowd that would be the ones doing most of the fighting and dying. Good luck winning a war by yourself.
Saying such things was the custom,and everyone did it. The term "god bless!" is still used today. This stuff is ingrained in the culture and there is nothing that can be done about it.
On the other hand,in their writings to each other they were more open with their actual viewpoints,but even then they followed the custom of writing such drivel as "On the 12th of May in Our Lords year of 17XX" on the letter headings. It was what was taught to the children that were lucky enough to receive a formal education back then,so it was what they used.
https://www.thoughtco.com/christian-quotes-of-the-founding-fathers-700789QuoteYes, and people like Jefferson and Madison spoke against Christianity some.
To be fair,I don't think they spoke against the idea of Christianity (or any other religion,AFATG),as much as they were speaking out on the historically proven FACT that allowing organized religion too much power over a nation corrupted the nation and made slaves of the people. This issue was really current with them as The Reformation and the troubles in England and the Catholic Church were more current history than ancient history .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_English_Reformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_English_Reformation)
It can be truthfully said the War of the Catholics against the Protestants was still going on in Northern Ireland right up to recent years. Old Man Joe Kennedy lost his job as Ambassador to the Court of St.James during WW-2 after being caught giving war plans to the IRA to give to the Nazi's.QuoteAnyway, I think there is a lot of credence that the US does have such foundations.
True. There is nothing wrong with establishing there is good and evil,and that good should be supported and evil fought against. The problem only starts when you choose a religious organization to determine what is good and what is evil. Suddenly you have innocent people being put to death in pots of boiling oil because they dared to question a church official,or even the existence of Gawd Himself.
One truism is that absolute power corrupts absolutely,and few other than the fat boy that owns North Korea have such absolute power today. Every village priest had that power back in the Middle Ages,though.
It also needs to be said that corrupt stranglehold over people was broken because of one of the bravest men in history standing up and questioning authority,Martin Luther. What is truly amazing is the he was a Catholic Priest himself,and thought the Church had too much power over the people and the governments.
In addition to the truth you spoke, can we have an over/under in how long it would take some perpetually angry people here to turn on the third party if by some miracle one got in power.
@driftdiver
Anybody and everybody that suggests we vote for one of the usual suspects because of the initial behind his or her name.
Voting for someone to high office is NOT going to remedy the collapse into Socialism and Statism. Until and unless this people WANT limited government and liberty - they will continue to vote for whomever promises to give them stuff and whatever promises they make to punish those they blame for not receiving all the goodies the population thinks it is owed for simply breathing.
The voting population has figured out that it can vote itself largesse from the treasury. The Founders noted that would be the death knell for liberty in this country.
And so it has.
@sneakypete
Whereas voting for a candidate that has zero chance of winning is a smart move? yeah thats gonna change things for the better. /s
*ahem*
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,277877.msg1428707.html#msg1428707
Doesn't have much to do with the topic.
Just sayin...
Sure it has to do with the subject. And there is no personal attack, no name calling.
I pull 0 out of my ass cuz there's nothing there to snag.
I thought we already had mods ...
We do. But some people seems to think it's cool to purposely subvert them every chance they get.
I'm a firm believer in taking care of things at the lowest level because once Mods get involved...
What else would you have them say in public in a time when saying you didn't believe in God could mean being locked up in jail,and then shunned by everyone in business so you couldn't make a living.
The one thing Karl Marx was right about is religion being the opiate of the masses. Jefferson and the others may have been educated men with a broad viewpoint on life,but they still had to "sell" the idea of independence and revolution to a mostly illiterate and superstitious crowd that would be the ones doing most of the fighting and dying. Good luck winning a war by yourself.
Saying such things was the custom,and everyone did it. The term "god bless!" is still used today. This stuff is ingrained in the culture and there is nothing that can be done about it.
On the other hand,in their writings to each other they were more open with their actual viewpoints,but even then they followed the custom of writing such drivel as "On the 12th of May in Our Lords year of 17XX" on the letter headings. It was what was taught to the children that were lucky enough to receive a formal education back then,so it was what they used.[/size]
https://www.thoughtco.com/christian-quotes-of-the-founding-fathers-700789
To be fair,I don't think they spoke against the idea of Christianity (or any other religion,AFATG),as much as they were speaking out on the historically proven FACT that allowing organized religion too much power over a nation corrupted the nation and made slaves of the people. This issue was really current with them as The Reformation and the troubles in England and the Catholic Church were more current history than ancient history .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_English_Reformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_English_Reformation)
It can be truthfully said the War of the Catholics against the Protestants was still going on in Northern Ireland right up to recent years. Old Man Joe Kennedy lost his job as Ambassador to the Court of St.James during WW-2 after being caught giving war plans to the IRA to give to the Nazi's.[/size]
True. There is nothing wrong with establishing there is good and evil,and that good should be supported and evil fought against. The problem only starts when you choose a religious organization to determine what is good and what is evil. Suddenly you have innocent people being put to death in pots of boiling oil because they dared to question a church official,or even the existence of Gawd Himself.
One truism is that absolute power corrupts absolutely,and few other than the fat boy that owns North Korea have such absolute power today. Every village priest had that power back in the Middle Ages,though.
It also needs to be said that corrupt stranglehold over people was broken because of one of the bravest men in history standing up and questioning authority,Martin Luther. What is truly amazing is the he was a Catholic Priest himself,and thought the Church had too much power over the people and the governments.
The Troubles in Northern Ireland, often portrayed as a religious conflict of a Catholic vs. a Protestant faction, while the more fundamental cause of the conflict was in fact ethnic or nationalistic rather than religious in nature.[23] Since the native Irish were mostly Catholic and the later British-sponsored immigrants were mainly Protestant, the terms become shorthand for the two cultures, but it is inaccurate to describe the conflict as a religious one.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
@sneakypete
Whereas voting for a candidate that has zero chance of winning is a smart move? yeah thats gonna change things for the better. /s
Again, that depends upon what you want to call 'winning'.
I am betting that if Kim Jong-un were able to run for President of the US,and ran on a platform of "FREE HBO FOR EVERYBODY!" as the sole item of his platform,that he would get more votes than either the alleged Republican or the Dim candidate.
Yeah,WE are political junkies that are interested in details,but we are a tiny minority of the voters in this country. From what I see in real life,a majority of the people here only start to pay attention to politics the last 2 or 3 months of a presidential election cycle,and literally don't have the first clue about what the actual issues or or the understanding of them. What they want and look for is someone who "looks and sounds presidential",and gives them the "warm and fuzzy feeling" when he or she speaks. You just can't go wrong from promising those people free HBO.
@roamer_1
Some people consider it to be winning a fist fight if they made the knuckles on their opponents fists bleed.
@TomSeaQuoteWe'd all be bowing to Mecca if it were not for European Christianty.
What's this "we stuff",Batman? YOU would be bowing to Mecca if Christianity didn't exist because you NEED a God to worship.
I don't.
BTW,speaking or writing about religion isn't off-topic on a political board because there are no organizations anywhere in the world that lust after political power more than any religion you can name.
Or as a wise man once said,"If God didn't exist,people would have to invent him. OOPS!"
Some people consider it to be winning a fist fight if they made the knuckles on their opponents fists bleed.
If we are cracking down on off-topic subjects, then, "imperial presidency", "messiah", "corruption", "not conservatives" etc. should be seen as way off topic by the original article by Codevilla. It looks like the main thing he was discussing was the health care bill to begin with. Maybe that should be the limit of discussion and talking about the Whig party.
@TomSea here we go again. This is a discussion about whether there is a need for a replacement for the Republican Party.
...It's clear to everyone that you do this on purpose.
@driftdiver
You mean like Trump?
@sneakypete
Yep, that's how the sign reads to me.
Electing a nYc liberal as a Republican president is the exact opposite of winning.
@sneakypete
Yep, that's how the sign reads to me.
Electing a nYc liberal as a Republican president is the exact opposite of winning.
Every post of mine has been strictly on the subject. No personal attacks, no name calling.
@roamer_1
Sure, what was the other reasonable choice? cmon which candidate on the ballot could have won the general election?
@sneakypeteQuoteDuring the primaries Trump wasn't my first choice, wasn't even my 5th choice but once the general election he became the only choice. Using your logic Rubio was the only candidate that we should vote for.
MY logic is never allowed within a mile of Rubio. He strikes me as just another power-mad weasel.
MY first choice during the last presidential election was "Anybody BUT the people who are running. Pick a freaking name at random out of a phone book!"
Then the night before the election I came to realize that electing a bomb thrower who would shake things up that wasn't owned by either branch of the ruling party was the clear choice over Mrs Marxist. Trump was clearly better than anyone running BECAUSE he wasn't a politician,but a life-long victim of politicians. You can bet your bippy that his grandfather,his father,and he have all been forced to make cash "gifts" to various politicians to put together the real estate deals they have made,and 90 percent of those politicians were career Dims.
Obviously you have made a lot of knuckles bleed by beating on them with your head.
Miss the Bush Crime Family,don'tcha?
@driftdiver
Doesn't matter. Because electing Trump isn't winning.
MY logic is never allowed within a mile of Rubio. He strikes me as just another power-mad weasel.
MY first choice during the last presidential election was "Anybody BUT the people who are running. Pick a freaking name at random out of a phone book!"
Then the night before the election I came to realize that electing a bomb thrower who would shake things up that wasn't owned by either branch of the ruling party was the clear choice over Mrs Marxist. Trump was clearly better than anyone running BECAUSE he wasn't a politician,but a life-long victim of politicians. You can bet your bippy that his grandfather,his father,and he have all been forced to make cash "gifts" to various politicians to put together the real estate deals they have made,and 90 percent of those politicians were career Dims.
Ok you sit in your perfect world and give up.
I choose not too. So far he's done far more good then I expected.
On top of that he's not Hillary.
Sorry, but the truth here is not a good defense. I suggest speaking only when spoken to.
And 'He's not Hillary' is the best example of why the Republican Party needs to go.
I have not given up. I just refuse to lend my endorsement to that which I abhor.
Then you have a very low bar.
I don't see much difference.
@roamer_1
Would Hillary have nominated a conservative SC Judge?
Would Hillary have reduced govt regulations?
There are quite of few things he's done that Hillary would not have. Theres a lot of really bad things she would have done, that he has not.
If you don't think there's a difference then I don't think you're being honest. She takes corruption to an entirely new level.
And 'He's not Hillary' is the best example of why the Republican Party needs to go.@roamer_1
And Mussolini made the trains run on time.
I am being entirely honest. He's a liberal. All it takes is single-payer healthcare or gang-of-eight amnesty, or any other progressive thing like-in-kind, and anything else he might do is rendered moot.
And the Republican party is no better.
Off-Topic but sorry, he has fullfilled some planks of the Republican Platform that prove the conservatism but is off-topic and banned per conversation here.
https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
Sorry, he's a Conservative; but the talk is NOT about Trump but about the GOP.
@roamer_1
Again, you can sit in your perfect little world. The rest of us (mostly) live in the real world. Out of all the Presidential elections for the last 235 or so years, how many have had an ideal candidate?
No, every single election is picking the best option of those available. Are there big problems with the Republican Party, yes. Is there another show in town, no.
Exactly wrong.
When you keep voting *for* 'lesser evil' liberals, soon all you'll have is liberals... Which is exactly where we are right now.
"Replacing the Republican Party
America needs a virile alternative to the present mess
By Angelo M. Codevilla -
Sunday, August 20, 2017
ANALYSIS/OPINION:"
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/20/republican-party-needs-to-be-replaced/
Is not even a news story. Labeled opinion.
"Replacing the Republican Party
America needs a virile alternative to the present mess
By Angelo M. Codevilla -
Sunday, August 20, 2017
ANALYSIS/OPINION:"
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/20/republican-party-needs-to-be-replaced/
Is not even a news story. Labeled opinion.
We should focus on changing the existing party by offering up quality primary candidates who are more interested in service, than being serviced on their way to the top.
I'm as angry with the entrenched, fat and happy republicans as the next guy. But, I see no viable 3rd party at this time. Even Trump as tough as he is will likely make only a dent in the DC cash cow system career politicians been milking for decades.
We should focus on changing the existing party by offering up quality primary candidates who are more interested in service, than being serviced on their way to the top.
We should focus on changing the existing party by offering up quality primary candidates who are more interested in service, than being serviced on their way to the top.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/20/republican-party-needs-to-be-replaced/
The original article mentions Trump, let's see, not 3 times, not 2 times, not 1 time.
Any guesses?
Yet, oh, fine. Say whatever one wants about an article that does not even mention him one time. Call him a liberal, messiah, imperial presidency, etc. Now, who is off-topic? And woe to anyone pointing out setting out to actually follow the Republican National Platform from the convention.
**nononono*
Riiiiight. Just like the last 30 years.
Foolishness.
We've got to get out of the mindset that there are only two options. And there needs to be someone with name recognition and the political organization to make that step to the likes of the Conservative Party or the Constitution Party to make it happen.
If you look back in history at the formation of the Republican Party...the Whigs laughed them off and dismissed them as well. They too failed to see the dissatisfaction of the people who voted for them with how they were handling their affairs in D.C. And now where is the Whig Party today?
The Republican Party needs to either wake up and remember history in a hurry...or the Whigs are going to be making room on the bench.
Mystery just posted a link to the golden opportunity we have to select more Republicans to the Senate in 2018. Some of the Dem senators are from states that Trump won by a large margin.
Mystery just posted a link to the golden opportunity we have to select more Republicans to the Senate in 2018. Some of the Dem senators are from states that Trump won by a large margin.
Waiting for you to discount electing more Republicans because they may not be conservative enough. 3 2 1
Mystery just posted a link to the golden opportunity we have to select more Republicans to the Senate in 2018. Some of the Dem senators are from states that Trump won by a large margin.
Waiting for you to discount electing more Republicans because they may not be conservative enough. 3 2 1
Knock your socks off.
Have fun.
But, @Emjay, if they're not pretty conservative and willing to go against the flow, what good are they doing us?
Mystery just posted a link to the golden opportunity we have to select more Republicans to the Senate in 2018. Some of the Dem senators are from states that Trump won by a large margin.
Waiting for you to discount electing more Republicans because they may not be conservative enough. 3 2 1
Again, what is your alternative? Do you have one?
Mystery just posted a link to the golden opportunity we have to select more Republicans to the Senate in 2018. Some of the Dem senators are from states that Trump won by a large margin.
Waiting for you to discount electing more Republicans because they may not be conservative enough. 3 2 1
Exactly. Acquiring the power first puts us in a position to effect–and here's the hard part– incremental changes. Incremental, because that's how a representative republic works. The left has stayed focused on this strategy since before FDR, and history shows us how wildly successful they have been.
A great strategy is for "conservatives," to portray themselves a always victims. /s
Mystery just posted a link to the golden opportunity we have to select more Republicans to the Senate in 2018. Some of the Dem senators are from states that Trump won by a large margin.
Waiting for you to discount electing more Republicans because they may not be conservative enough. 3 2 1
And I notice how the goal posts have moved from broad sweeping changes and draining the swamp and doing this on day one and doing that in six months etc etc to talking more like McConnell and the GOPe and making references to small incremental changes.
**nononono*
No, really, this time they mean it.
I wouldn't say foolish at all.
Both approaches involve an amount of short term pain, and have almost no chance of long term success.
We told you. You're not listening or you have decided to ignore it altogether. I'm going with the latter. So stop asking.
Exactly. Acquiring the power first puts us in a position to effect–and here's the hard part– incremental changes. Incremental, because that's how a representative republic works. The left has stayed focused on this strategy since before FDR, and history shows us how wildly successful they have been.
We as you and others have pointed out the majority of Governorships...state houses and we control the Senate...the House and the Presidency.
How much more "power" does the GOP need to accrue to enact GOP policies?
And I notice how the goal posts have moved from broad sweeping changes and draining the swamp and doing this on day one and doing that in six months etc etc to talking more like McConnell and the GOPe and making references to small incremental changes.
**nononono*
And I notice how the goal posts have moved from broad sweeping changes and draining the swamp and doing this on day one and doing that in six months etc etc to talking more like McConnell and the GOPe and making references to small incremental changes.
But, @Emjay, if they're not pretty conservative and willing to go against the flow, what good are they doing us?
Waiting for you to stop with the excuses when we already control Congress the White House and a majority of state houses.
Thanks, again, for being a voice of sanity. Rome wasn't built in a day - and Rome didn't have the unprecedented Democratic resistance machine determined to deny the citizenry the leadership they duly elected.
The GOP is at a high water mark in terms of offices held, and has a golden opportunity to increase its majority in the Senate in 2018. Yet the usual suspects are preaching nihilism. It is the siren song of the drama queen, the petulant child, the sore loser - best thing to do is ignore it.
You've said what your not gonna do. You haven't said what you are going to do that will make a difference.
Except in that the Neocons have rules in place to keep Conservatives down. And they use the RNC to bolster the ranks wit more liberals, and deny Conservatives the resources necessary to win.
At least in the Constitution party, they mean it, and stand upon their platform. Or maybe they don't - Having never had power, it's hard to know what they would do once it is obtained.
But even at that, we already know what Republicans do to Conservatives...
It's a no-brainer to me regardless. I will vote for Conservatives, from dog catcher on up. and if I don't have a conservative, I will consider a Libertarian (which is still closer kin than Republican Neocons). But I will never help to elect another stinking moderate or liberal, of any stripe.
I've already made a difference in the meat world. I have stoked a lot of the displeasure of local Republicans into action and directed them towards looking at the Constitution Party. Some of them have actually dumped their GOP party registration, which I was happy to encourage. Most agree with me, that they are no longer beholden to the party except to support a bona-fide Conservative with a long track record of fruits to match the rhetoric no matter what party they run in. The local district captains who are actually part of Team Mitch like to make trouble - but the bulk of the locals who were there to get Rand elected have told the party hacks to pound sand. We agree towards working to get an actual Conservative party that is not anchored in DC as the long term goal, provided we even survive that long. The economic laws we have broken are going to crush just about everything regardless of the current conflagration of politics - and we have yet to discover what survives intact. I haven't even mentioned the spiritual laws that we will be held to accountable for transgressing.
As far as making an actual difference any of you Trump/GOP Party pushers would notice, or acknowledge... none. An ignorant and willfully stupid people who think voting for lesser Liberals and more polished politicians making empty promises in a corrupt oligarchy is how we make a difference, will ensure nothing anyone attempts to do to advance Conservatism will ever make a difference.
You are on a fast track to limiting yourselves to a vote between a Mussolini and a Stalin and you are simply polishing your skills and rhetoric to justify pushing the lesser evil of the two.
"My people are destroyed for lack of wisdom". - Hosea 4:6
@sneakypete
Nope. Not even a little bit. Dubya's second was the last time I voted for a Republican for president, and the only reason I did was for the war. Big mistake. That's what woke me up.
@sneakypete
I didn't keep my ballot but I don't recall a "anybody from the phonebook" on the ballot. Call me crazy but I chose to pick from the available options.
Nobody but nobody gets to the Presidential election without doing a lot of favors. Even Reagan had favors he owed.
Thanks, again, for being a voice of sanity. Rome wasn't built in a day - and Rome didn't have the unprecedented Democratic resistance machine determined to deny the citizenry the leadership they duly elected.
The GOP is at a high water mark in terms of offices held, and has a golden opportunity to increase its majority in the Senate in 2018. Yet the usual suspects are preaching nihilism. It is the siren song of the drama queen, the petulant child, the sore loser - best thing to do is ignore it.
What planks has he filled? And since he's the President...elected on the Republican ticket...wouldn't that make him the head of the GOP?
@txradioguy
Given that he has done some of the CONSERVATIVE things that previous alleged Republican presidents didn't even attempt to do,WTF do you care WHAT he calls himself?
He can call himself a Buick if he wants to,but so far he is still the most conservative president we have had since Reagan left office,yet you are bitching about him.
I stopped at the same time. Boy Jorge and his insane invasion of Iraq to protect his Saud masters was the trip wire for me.
I am NOT saying I won't vote for a Republican for any office anymore,but I AM saying I won't vote for any of the purely because they have a Big Red R tattooed on their chest. That's more of a reason to NOT vote for them than it is TO vote for them.
You seem to know a lot about other people's motivations.
Yet you only attack people who vote Republican. Not democrats.
Oh and you can quote the bible. So can Satan. Doesn't mean he's right either.
If it ain't a Conservative record ... ACU 90%+, I will not vote for em. Period.
Well, pretty sure they will be better than the dems and I'm hoping they're conservative.I have noticed Dems only rarely vote against the Party Line.
You know you will be accused of being an enemy of the good because you expect and want perfection, which they say is impossible to strive for, while choosing the lesser Liberal Leftist is noble, good and right.
@txradioguyConsidering that many of the conservative things he has done were just rescinding or reversing Obama policies, I really don't think any of the other Republican Presidents could have done that (without being prescient).
Given that he has done some of the CONSERVATIVE things that previous alleged Republican presidents didn't even attempt to do,WTF do you care WHAT he calls himself?
He can call himself a Buick if he wants to,but so far he is still the most conservative president we have had since Reagan left office,yet you are bitching about him.
I have noticed Dems only rarely vote against the Party Line.
Republicans seem to manage consistently to do so, especially on critical votes, in sufficient number to thwart the sort of legislative progress that might convince me that they meant one splinter of their party platform.
@txradioguy
Given that he has done some of the CONSERVATIVE things that previous alleged Republican presidents didn't even attempt to do,WTF do you care WHAT he calls himself?
He can call himself a Buick if he wants to,but so far he is still the most conservative president we have had since Reagan left office,yet you are bitching about him.
Great point. Conservative is what one does, not just what they say at reelection. (Right, Mitch?)
Codevila says the House did their job, makes no mention of the Commander in Chief, Codevilla pinpoints the senators, Republican senators as governing like Democrats for the Uniparty. I agree, this is on topic, McConnel, McCain, Cruz, Paul, Rubio are all a bunch of sell-out fake conservatives. That's on topic. Whom makes it about others are those who hijack the thread.
I have noticed Dems only rarely vote against the Party Line.
Republicans seem to manage consistently to do so, especially on critical votes, in sufficient number to thwart the sort of legislative progress that might convince me that they meant one splinter of their party platform.
What Conservative things might those be?
@sneakypeteQuoteI didn't like him much from the start. Figured that apple didn't fall too far from the horse. I hoped a little Texas had rubbed off on him... but his second term showed him to still be from HighAnusPort. I deeply regret voting for him that second term. And I knew better.
@roamer_1
Ok,I stopped one election before you. After his first term and him pimping out the US Military to the asshat King of Saudi Arabia,I was done. I would have voted for Jimmy Carter or Clinton before I would have voted for him. Nice man personally,but despite his staged macho of clearing brush at Camp Photo Op, a punk mama's boy drunken closeted homo of a president.
In fact,I hadn't cast a vote for President since Boy Jorge's first term until Trump ran as a Republican. Even then half the reason was because he was and is neither a Republican nor a Dim,and the other half of the reason was he wasn't Bubbette! and the hope he would throw a few political grenades into the monkey works once in office. Or at least cause a dozen or so Professional Party People to have strokes and thereby make the world a better place.
No luck on the strokes YET,but it's still early days and it costs nothing to hope. He sure does have all the professional criminal class we call "politicians" in a uproar,though. The hatred directed towards him is the most bi-partisan thing I have ever seen congress come together on.
I have noticed Dems only rarely vote against the Party Line.
Republicans seem to manage consistently to do so, especially on critical votes, in sufficient number to thwart the sort of legislative progress that might convince me that they meant one splinter of their party platform.
@txradioguy
You are neither stupid nor blind and deaf. You know even if you woon't admit it,so why waste my time looking it all up and providing links you won't read or will claim are lies?
@Smokin Joe
That's because they are "Republicans of convience",not real Republicans. They ran for office as Republicans because that was what they needed to do to get the nomination and to win,not because they believe ANY of the conservative POV's.
I don't want perfection. I just want Conservatism.
It ain't that hard.
The problem with that is there are more of the "republicans of convenience" than conservatives in the party. If the party does nothing to discipline them or bring them in line, then the party owns them. Therefore they ARE republicans. Period.
The problem with that is there are more of the "republicans of convenience" than conservatives in the party. If the party does nothing to discipline them or bring them in line, then the party owns them. Therefore they ARE republicans. Period.
Considering that many of the conservative things he has done were just rescinding or reversing Obama policies, I really don't think any of the other Republican Presidents could have done that (without being prescient).
QuoteAnd you're so busy running around ranting for no reason at all you've either run right over or purposely ignored...as have others...the times I've supported Trump on things he's done right.
And noting in passing that he doesn't sweat much for a fat girl while praising him. I have seen you stating you agreed with things he has done or tried to do,but there was ALWAYS a "but......." attached.
The problem with that is there are more of the "republicans of convenience" than conservatives in the party. If the party does nothing to discipline them or bring them in line, then the party owns them. Therefore they ARE republicans. Period.
QuoteMost Republicans are conservative.
@Jazzhead
Maybe by Berkley or NYC standards,but not by American standards.
There was recently an article published that noted that out of all the Republicans in Congress,only ONE Republican congressman had never cast an anti-conservative vote,and no more than 3 others that voted conservative more than half the time.
That Congressman is Walter Jones,R-NC. Better known as "Walter WHO?" because he can't even buy an appearance on any of the talking head media political shows.
Remember when Boy Jorge was running for re-election while amping up the upcoming invasion of Iraq? Someone sent me a news report of Jones giving a speech to the Marines at Camp Lejune,which is in his district,telling them we had no reason or right to invade Iraq. The Marines gave him a standing ovation. You might still be able to find that clip on youtube,but I doubt it. Can't have "Walter Who?" get any teebee camera time or it might make the natives restless.
The situation was even worse in the US Senate. NOT A SINGLE ONE of the alleged Republican US Senators cast more conservative votes than non-conservative votes. It was strictly "go along to get along".
@Jazzhead
Maybe by Berkley or NYC standards,but not by American standards.
There was recently an article published that noted that out of all the Republicans in Congress,only ONE Republican congressman had never cast an anti-conservative vote,and no more than 3 others that voted conservative more than half the time.
That Congressman is Walter Jones,R-NC. Better known as "Walter WHO?" because he can't even buy an appearance on any of the talking head media political shows.
Remember when Boy Jorge was running for re-election while amping up the upcoming invasion of Iraq? Someone sent me a news report of Jones giving a speech to the Marines at Camp Lejune,which is in his district,telling them we had no reason or right to invade Iraq. The Marines gave him a standing ovation. You might still be able to find that clip on youtube,but I doubt it. Can't have "Walter Who?" get any teebee camera time or it might make the natives restless.
The situation was even worse in the US Senate. NOT A SINGLE ONE of the alleged Republican US Senators cast more conservative votes than non-conservative votes. It was strictly "go along to get along".
Thanks to the radical Democrat Party today, the chasm is as deep.
Therefore. anyone with a GOP affiliation may claim some level of Conservatism. And they wouldn't be lying when held up against the opposition.
Thanks to the radical Democrat Party today, the chasm is as deep.I can claim to be a Maserati, too, but that doesn't make it so.
Therefore. anyone with a GOP affiliation may claim some level of Conservatism. And they wouldn't be lying when held up against the opposition.
Most Republicans are conservative. Some, however, are not the peculiar variant known as social conservatives. There is a tension between social conservatives and those with more libertarian views regarding religious values being promoted by government in the public sphere. That doesn't mean the GOP coalition is illegitimate or not fundamentally "conservative" in nature. It is just that - a coalition, that from time to time needs to compromise and horse-trade to effect legislation.
Like Susan Collins? She exhibits not one iota of conservatism, yet the Republican party claims her and she claims to be a Republican.
Like Susan Collins? She exhibits not one iota of conservatism, yet the Republican party claims her and she claims to be a Republican.
Some think they are conservative when they are not. There are some principles that one cannot compromise and still remain conservative.
I feel the same way. But we may not agree what those principles are. And, as you'd say, therein lies the problem.That's why Parties have this thing called a "Platform". In that "platform" are "planks", which are the individual policies and positions that the party takes on specific issues which, in aggregate make up the Platform of the party.
But, you see, the GOP is a coalition of (mostly) conservatives - different flavors of conservative. We may disagree on the government's role regarding abortion, for example, but agree on most other things. Nothing wrong with that - the trick is to gain a majority - at the polls AND in the halls of Congress.
For what it's worth:
1. Susan Collins' ACU rating for 2016 was a dismal 23, but that was still higher than every Democratic Senator other than West Virginia's Manchin (who was a 27)
2. Susan Collins' lifetime ACU rating is 44.85 -again, far better than anyone with a "D" by their name.
3. Lisa Murkowski, the other GOP Senator who wouldn't vote for ACA reform because of the brilliant idea of combining it with PP defunding, has a 2016 ACU rating of 54. She's "conservative" at least half the time.
I'm also pleased to report that Pat Toomey, who was the only reason I bothered to vote at all in 2016, had a 2016 ACU rating of 96! :patriot:
Great thoughts @TomSea until that last sentence, proving once again that the Cruz bug up your butt is bigger than the Trump bug up my butt.
Her Liberty Score is 12%. Heck, she scored lower than Cory Booker, Edward Markey, Lamar Alexander, Bernard Sanders and Elizabeth Warren!
Great thoughts @TomSea until that last sentence, proving once again that the Cruz bug up your butt is bigger than the Trump bug up my butt.
Some think they are conservative when they are not. There are some principles that one cannot compromise and still remain conservative.
For what it's worth:
1. Susan Collins' ACU rating for 2016 was a dismal 23, but that was still higher than every Democratic Senator other than West Virginia's Manchin (who was a 27)
2. Susan Collins' lifetime ACU rating is 44.85 -again, far better than anyone with a "D" by their name.
3. Lisa Murkowski, the other GOP Senator who wouldn't vote for ACA reform because of the brilliant idea of combining it with PP defunding, has a 2016 ACU rating of 54. She's "conservative" at least half the time.
I'm also pleased to report that Pat Toomey, who was the only reason I bothered to vote at all in 2016, had a 2016 ACU rating of 96! :patriot:
Fundamental principles of liberty; limited government, responsibility, morality - no longer exist or apply in either one of the two major parties, nor the culture that they represent.
The word "Conservative" no longer represents what it once meant - and it is being redefined on two fronts; from within the Republican Party itself - and the label that the media and the Leftists/Marxists continue to fling upon it.
Everyone laments that the GOP cannot mimic the Democrats' ability to force fealty and march in lockstep to whatever issue and motion their leadership is pushing for. I lament the fact that most in this country pine for party loyalty and fealty, rather than loyalty and fealty to our foundational documents that were created to protect liberty. Liberty, that the vast majority of the population and nearly all the political creatures that represent them, want nothing to do with outside of the freedom to do whatever feels good without consequence at someone else's expense.
The fact is limited, small and responsible government is no longer a platform of the Republican Party. Neither is adherence or respect for the Constitutional limits our Founders placed upon it. The Republican Party now stands for "better managed" big Government Statism, or European Socialism versus overt Marxism/Communism that the Democrat Party now operates under. "Conservative" in the Republican party now means being just slightly to the right of Democrats on policy, even if the goal of Statism is the same as long as one wraps themselves up in the flag and attach a flashing light over the big fat "R" they wear next to their name.
It should not be surprising that after the major parties have abandoned the Constitution and the political caste works together to circumvent or ignore it altogether - that the whole people by and large also have followed their lead and abandoned Constitutional principles in favor of getting their slice of pie at the hands of those they send to negotiate robbing the treasury on their behalf. Two decades ago, the idea of government-run and mandated health insurance and healthcare was anathema to Conservative thought. Today - the argument is over how it must be managed and regulated rather than eschew the very idea of it.
So now the talk is the need to enforce fealty to party, fealty to the President, rather than fealty to the oaths the representatives in those parties swear allegiance to.
I'm not interested in building coalitions with the wicked to adopt more Liberal Socialism to get an empty promise of rolling back the iron fist of the state by electing more liberal Democrats to power in the party with a big fat R. I'm interested in separating from them. The consequences both parties have sown - is a bitter harvest we have yet to truly reap. I do not want to be anywhere near them when that unravelling begins.
Yes, I completely recognize that my view is in a woeful and tiny minority. It's an indictment of the whole corrupted system and the people that wallow in the slime they happily coat themselves with because they do not want liberty. They want security and the illusion of peace, safety and provision, at the expense of others. I'm happy to be the only guy in the mob, not saluting, because my fealty is not to what the mob salutes. My fealty is to what the mob has rejected and replaced.
Cruz is Kryptonite to some Trump lovers. Not sure why because Trump was far more hateful to Cruz than vice versa.
You know @Emjay that "Trump lovers" shit is really getting old. "Trump supporters" would be appropriate --- unless you're actually trying to carry the anger from the primaries through eternity --- and I've come to know you're better than this.
Having said that, I'll take a shot about Cruz. First, Cruz isn't kryptonite to anyone or anything. So, let's get that out of the way.
For most Trump supporters, Cruz was not an issue during the primaries, and neither was Bush, Rubio, Kasich, et al. This was as any other primary season, a time to choose a favorite son (or daughter). There were bruises from some fierce battles in support of the top two candidates. As it turned out, Trump was the passionate street fighter while Cruz kept misfiring, badly.
Cruz, all by himself, made enemies out of frenemies at the convention with his refusal to support the candidate and his "vote your conscience" BS. I know many folks who are still reeling from that ... and who now believe "Lyin' Ted" was more than a sharpened political club. They firmly believe it is true; not because of any political rhetoric coming from Trump, but because of the tantrum Cruz chose to throw---in public, when it mattered most.
But he did come around toward the end of the national campaign (as his big donors demanded) and the bruises were healing. That healing would be complete by now if NTs would stop using Ted Cruz's spectacular loss against Trump, his victory and his supporters.
We're ready, willing and able to reengage with Cruz .... all the NTs need to do is get the hell out of the way.
GOP is far more of a Big Tent party than the Dems. A lot of fiscal conservatives wish the Pubs would put less emphasis on social issues and I'm among that faction, except when it comes to being Pro-Life.If you are not a social conservative, then you cannot claim to be a conservative at all.
If you are not a social conservative, then you cannot claim to be a conservative at all.
You know @Emjay that "Trump lovers" shit is really getting old. "Trump supporters" would be appropriate --- unless you're actually trying to carry the anger from the primaries through eternity --- and I've come to know you're better than this.
Having said that, I'll take a shot about Cruz. First, Cruz isn't kryptonite to anyone or anything. So, let's get that out of the way.
For most Trump supporters, Cruz was not an issue during the primaries, and neither was Bush, Rubio, Kasich, et al. This was as any other primary season, a time to choose a favorite son (or daughter). There were bruises from some fierce battles in support of the top two candidates. As it turned out, Trump was the passionate street fighter while Cruz kept misfiring, badly.
Cruz, all by himself, made enemies out of frenemies at the convention with his refusal to support the candidate and his "vote your conscience" BS. I know many folks who are still reeling from that ... and who now believe "Lyin' Ted" was more than a sharpened political club. They firmly believe it is true; not because of any political rhetoric coming from Trump, but because of the tantrum Cruz chose to throw---in public, when it mattered most.
But he did come around toward the end of the national campaign (as his big donors demanded) and the bruises were healing. That healing would be complete by now if NTs would stop using Ted Cruz's spectacular loss against Trump, his victory and his supporters.
We're ready, willing and able to reengage with Cruz .... all the NTs need to do is get the hell out of the way.
You are aware that @Emjay supports Trump, are you not? Weird attack.
Good cop, bad cop.
I think it was bad, bad cop. *****rollingeyes*****
Yes, I would love to see such upheaval in the GOP that either a shift to the Constitution party is made by true conservatives or a completely new conservative party emerges. Until that happens, I will continue to support those that I feel are worthy of my support. I stopped supporting the GOP party a long, long time ago.
You know @Emjay that "Trump lovers" shit is really getting old. "Trump supporters" would be appropriate --- unless you're actually trying to carry the anger from the primaries through eternity --- and I've come to know you're better than this.
Having said that, I'll take a shot about Cruz. First, Cruz isn't kryptonite to anyone or anything. So, let's get that out of the way.
For most Trump supporters, Cruz was not an issue during the primaries, and neither was Bush, Rubio, Kasich, et al. This was as any other primary season, a time to choose a favorite son (or daughter). There were bruises from some fierce battles in support of the top two candidates. As it turned out, Trump was the passionate street fighter while Cruz kept misfiring, badly.
Cruz, all by himself, made enemies out of frenemies at the convention with his refusal to support the candidate and his "vote your conscience" BS. I know many folks who are still reeling from that ... and who now believe "Lyin' Ted" was more than a sharpened political club. They firmly believe it is true; not because of any political rhetoric coming from Trump, but because of the tantrum Cruz chose to throw---in public, when it mattered most.
But he did come around toward the end of the national campaign (as his big donors demanded) and the bruises were healing. That healing would be complete by now if NTs would stop using Ted Cruz's spectacular loss against Trump, his victory and his supporters.
We're ready, willing and able to reengage with Cruz .... all the NTs need to do is get the hell out of the way.
If you are not a social conservative, then you cannot claim to be a conservative at all.
BaloneyGo eat some more Oscar Mayer if that's what you enjoy.
BS @Right_in_Virginia though a very thoughtful post explaining that Trumpers are ready to move on and 'heel' (sic) any Cruz thread on TOS proves otherwise, as it quickly devolves into a hatefest, STILL!
Look, I'm ok with it all, we just have a difference of opinion and we are adult enough to accept that and pretend we love each other.
:beer:
Malarkey.The Massachusetts Senator? I don't think of him as conservative.
You are aware that @Emjay supports Trump, are you not? Weird attack.
Agreed the whole system is corrupt, but we certainly aren't going to fix things from the top down, but rather from the bottom up, though the amount of corruption may even prohibit that.
Cruz, all by himself, made enemies out of frenemies at the convention with his refusal to support the candidate and his "vote your conscience" BS.
The most important thing stated on this thread.
Too bad most do not recognize that truth and think monarchy or dictatorship is the answer, even they do not use those words to describe what they want.
You know @Emjay that "Trump lovers" shit is really getting old. "Trump supporters" would be appropriate --- unless you're actually trying to carry the anger from the primaries through eternity --- and I've come to know you're better than this.
Having said that, I'll take a shot about Cruz. First, Cruz isn't kryptonite to anyone or anything. So, let's get that out of the way.
For most Trump supporters, Cruz was not an issue during the primaries, and neither was Bush, Rubio, Kasich, et al. This was as any other primary season, a time to choose a favorite son (or daughter). There were bruises from some fierce battles in support of the top two candidates. As it turned out, Trump was the passionate street fighter while Cruz kept misfiring, badly.
Cruz, all by himself, made enemies out of frenemies at the convention with his refusal to support the candidate and his "vote your conscience" BS. I know many folks who are still reeling from that ... and who now believe "Lyin' Ted" was more than a sharpened political club. They firmly believe it is true; not because of any political rhetoric coming from Trump, but because of the tantrum Cruz chose to throw---in public, when it mattered most.
But he did come around toward the end of the national campaign (as his big donors demanded) and the bruises were healing. That healing would be complete by now if NTs would stop using Ted Cruz's spectacular loss against Trump, his victory and his supporters.
We're ready, willing and able to reengage with Cruz .... all the NTs need to do is get the hell out of the way.
@corbe
Weren't you just posting yesterday about showing respect for each other and stopping with the sniping?
I swear I saw you post something like that but I could be wrong.
yet you continue with the 'trumpers' labels and similar crap. Guess that didn't last long.
@corbe
Weren't you just posting yesterday about showing respect for each other and stopping with the sniping?
I swear I saw you post something like that but I could be wrong.
yet you continue with the 'trumpers' labels and similar crap. Guess that didn't last long.
You're getting bent out of shape because of the word "trumpers"?
I've always been fascinated by that attitude from my friends who are "Trump Supporters." How could they think anything other than voting for Trump was "voting your conscience?" Is that an admission that for some folks voting for Trump would violate that conscience?
Have the courage of your convictions.
Yes @driftdiver that was me with multiple posting about the increasing level of vitriol the last few days, I was unaware that 'Trumpers' was a snip or a foul word or even that some, such as you, would find that word, offensive. It's just a label, I did not mean it to be offensive. Had Sen. Cruz won the election I would not find it offensive at all to be 'labeled' a Cruzer.
Is this a word I need to put on my non PC list like negro and queer?
You're getting bent out of shape because of the word "trumpers"?
Did I rattle my zipper?
I didn't realize you were so thin skinned about such things. Seems odd.
I'm always amazed that people have such short term memories to the fact that Trump was the one who originally said he wouldn't honor that stupid loyalty pledge in the first place.
Thats funny coming from you considering you run to the mods at the slightest provocation.
Thats funny coming from you considering you run to the mods at the slightest provocation.
I'm just applying a little logic. I cannot fathom why Trump folks were so angry about what Cruz said in his convention speech.
Frankly, I don't think he said "vote your conscience" rather than "vote for Donald" because he was trying to be an A-hole. I think it was because he was mindful of the fact that his own job is on the line, and he needed to keep his street cred with his voters in TX. He barely got in in the first place, like a wildcard playoff birth in Baseball.
You do realize @Sanguine that not every opinion is an "attack", weird or otherwise.
As for attacking @Emjay , I wasn't... I was surprised by her using such a favorite and derogatory NT adjective.
I hope this clears it up for you @Sanguine ... I've got a meeting scheduled, so I must log off. If you misunderstand anything else in my post, I'll be happy to explain, when time permits. :seeya:
@INVAR
Yet you think we can tear the system down and rebuild it from the ground up and will achieve a Constitutional Republic. A dictatorship is far more likely.
Wow, RIV. Maximum snark attack!
But, don't worry your pretty little head; I understood much more than you would like.
Oh, and a tip: if you don't want comments on your posts, don't post them.
Wow, RIV. Maximum snark attack!
But, don't worry your pretty little head; I understood much more than you would like.
Oh, and a tip: if you can't handle comments on your posts, don't post them.
If you are not a social conservative, then you cannot claim to be a conservative at all.
You know @Emjay that "Trump lovers" shit is really getting old. "Trump supporters" would be appropriate --- unless you're actually trying to carry the anger from the primaries through eternity --- and I've come to know you're better than this.
Having said that, I'll take a shot about Cruz. First, Cruz isn't kryptonite to anyone or anything. So, let's get that out of the way.
For most Trump supporters, Cruz was not an issue during the primaries, and neither was Bush, Rubio, Kasich, et al. This was as any other primary season, a time to choose a favorite son (or daughter). There were bruises from some fierce battles in support of the top two candidates. As it turned out, Trump was the passionate street fighter while Cruz kept misfiring, badly.
Cruz, all by himself, made enemies out of frenemies at the convention with his refusal to support the candidate and his "vote your conscience" BS. I know many folks who are still reeling from that ... and who now believe "Lyin' Ted" was more than a sharpened political club. They firmly believe it is true; not because of any political rhetoric coming from Trump, but because of the tantrum Cruz chose to throw---in public, when it mattered most.
But he did come around toward the end of the national campaign (as his big donors demanded) and the bruises were healing. That healing would be complete by now if NTs would stop using Ted Cruz's spectacular loss against Trump, his victory and his supporters.
We're ready, willing and able to reengage with Cruz .... all the NTs need to do is get the hell out of the way.
Not true. I wish that everyone was a nice person. I wish that nobody cheated on their wife or husband. I wish that nobody hated.
I even wish that homosexuals had been willing to accept legal union and not force a divisive issue like gay marriage on us.
I am a social conservative in ALMOST every sense of the word, but I don't believe it should be a part of the Republican platform to force my definition of morality on anyone.
Not true. I wish that everyone was a nice person. I wish that nobody cheated on their wife or husband. I wish that nobody hated.Being part of the Republican platform has no bearing on what a conservative is. That has been proved ad nauseum.
I even wish that homosexuals had been willing to accept legal union and not force a divisive issue like gay marriage on us.
I am a social conservative in ALMOST every sense of the word, but I don't believe it should be a part of the Republican platform to force my definition of morality on anyone.
Being part of the Republican platform has no bearing on what a conservative is. That has been proved ad nauseum.
And no one is forcing you to accept some definition of morality. Even God does not do that, although he does judge you by His definition.
If I understood what the heck you are saying, I would attempt a response.Good, keep silent. It will do us all good.
Good, keep silent. It will do us all good.
I believe the attempt for a dictatorship has already been started and is/was the objective of Bammy, Clinton, Soros, etc.; tearing down the system from the resulting in a dictatorship. We have more conservative governors than we've had in a long time and many states now have conservative legislatures. I believe right now those conservative governors and those conservative state legislators are the 'glue' that is holding this country together. They far outnumber the likes of of McConnell, Ryan, McCain, etc., and certainly aren't doing us any favors. There are approximately 7,383 state legislators vs. 535 members of Congress. Imagine if the conservative governors and conservative legislators made an exit from the GOP and joined up with the Constitution party. I see that scenario as more of a possibility in order to combat a dictatorship rather than create one. The DEMS and the RINO's have slowly tried to increase their powers within Congress meanwhile trying to strip the rights away from the states and ultimately the people.
@libertybele
We do have a lot of conservative Governors and control of the White House, Senate, and House. What does that get us? It doesn't get us the power to push through the Conservative agenda. The GOP leadership and DNC Leadership are essentially the same. So all the Cruz's in the world really won't help until we can remove the McConnells, Ryans, McCains and other Globalists. Even the rank and file Democrats (Blue Dogs) are essentially powerless because of the Pelosi's. Most of the Blue Dogs aren't willing to sell out America but they have very little power, by design.
Under Obama local police forces couldn't even control people like Occupy without a Federal civil rights lawsuit. For all his faults Trump is putting a stop to that which is why the GOP leadership wants him gone.
Wow, RIV. Maximum snark attack!
But, don't worry your pretty little head; I understood much more than you would like.
Oh, and a tip: if you can't handle comments on your posts, don't post them.
This wasn't a maximum snark attack @Sanguine .... it pales in comparison to those posted by others. I simply said something you didn't like, or agree with. That's cool.
I can handle the comments on my posts, but I reserve the right to react to them.
And BTW, how did you know I have a pretty head? ***blushing***
@INVAR
Yet you think we can tear the system down and rebuild it from the ground up and will achieve a Constitutional Republic. A dictatorship is far more likely.
Wow! Amazing that you choose to attack one of the people on this forum who tries hard to be fair to Trump and defend him when he's lied about.
I'm so in awe of the weird post, I can't even type.
But your post proves two things: Cruz IS Kryptonite to Trump lovers and Trump lover is the correct term. No one gets that excited about someone they just support.
@Right_in_Virginia
Hey, still waiting for you to apologize to me. Should I sit down, set a timer, or what?
A dictatorship is likely the course the two party Oligarchy has established already, including the vast amounts of power the GOP and the Dems granted the executive over the last decade.
However, as is usual - your reading comprehension SUCKS.
I did not say a damned thing about tearing the system down to rebuild it. Unless you equate the Republican Party as an intrinsic 'part of the system' - which it is not. It is just a political faction, that's all. Nothing more.
I stated it is time for true Conservatives to separate themselves from the Republican Party, dump it - let it get folded into the Democrat party where their true allegiance lies and to put Conservative energy and efforts into something else outside of the corruption that infests DC.
If you want to view that as tearing the system down and being traitors, that is your problem and aligns you with the mindset of how the Crown saw the Colonists when they decided they had enough and separated.
@INVAR
Yet you think we can tear the system down and rebuild it from the ground up and will achieve a Constitutional Republic. A dictatorship is far more likely.
@driftdiver
I hate to break the bad news to you but the Constitutional Republic given us by the founders has been gone for a VERY long time now!
Ok,I stopped one election before you.
After his first term and him pimping out the US Military to the asshat King of Saudi Arabia,I was done. I would have voted for Jimmy Carter or Clinton before I would have voted for him. Nice man personally,but despite his staged macho of clearing brush at Camp Photo Op, a punk mama's boy drunken closeted homo of a president.
In fact,I hadn't cast a vote for President since Boy Jorge's first term until Trump ran as a Republican. Even then half the reason was because he was and is neither a Republican nor a Dim,and the other half of the reason was he wasn't Bubbette! and the hope he would throw a few political grenades into the monkey works once in office. Or at least cause a dozen or so Professional Party People to have strokes and thereby make the world a better place.
No luck on the strokes YET,but it's still early days and it costs nothing to hope. He sure does have all the professional criminal class we call "politicians" in a uproar,though. The hatred directed towards him is the most bi-partisan thing I have ever seen congress come together on.[/size]
uh huh, yeah right. And unicorns can crap icecream
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b9/e0/1c/b9e01cb6237a1914db829ecc455bc3e3--colorful-ice-cream-rainbow-ice-cream.jpg)
Not true. I wish that everyone was a nice person. I wish that nobody cheated on their wife or husband. I wish that nobody hated.
I even wish that homosexuals had been willing to accept legal union and not force a divisive issue like gay marriage on us.
I am a social conservative in ALMOST every sense of the word, but I don't believe it should be a part of the Republican platform to force my definition of morality on anyone.
@Bigun
And our glorious leaders in the eGOP and DNC are still not content. They will bring us to a global socialist government where the little people live in dorms and praise the govt.
I didn't see it that way. I saw the play, moving it to Iraq, But I saw it as brilliant strategy. It's a helluva lot easier to kill em in a sandbox than in the rocky teeth of the Afghanistan mountains... And it is.
But then they quit early and started nation-building, and moved into Afghanistan too (which is as dumb a move as there is), so the idea that it was military strategy kinda started going right on out the window.
I think all that's a lot of sunshine blowing up your skirt.
The fact of the matter is that Trump IS one of them. You don't play NYC crony-capitalism without playing political games.
As to bipartisan 'hate', yeah. he's got all the right enemies... But he's got all the wrong ones to... I think all that has more to do with him being a self absorbed, self-important A$$4073 than any other thing.
I think he and the Republican leadership are playing a long con, and what comes out of that is what they've been after all along. If we don't wind up with single-payer insurance and gang-of-eight amnesty out of this presidency, I will truly be surprised.
Left foot, right foot, as we shuffle on to Gomorrah.
Wow. Totally off-topic, but that's got to be the most beautiful ice cream cone / unicorn crap I've ever seen.
It wasn't an attack @Emjay ... certainly wasn't meant to be so if you feel it was, I apologize.
That you used "Trump lovers" again, this time stressing it is the correct term, is demeaning and disrespectful to me. I've let you know this and now I'll let you decide if you want to use the term again---when talking with me.
Yes, Emjay, people do get excited about someone they support. (And I'm assuming you're not throwing "excited" out here from the sewer.) The essence of political support IS excitement. Excitement in the hope and the vision the candidate promises. I will admit this has not been the case for Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, for more than a generation so this memory may well have faded.
Again, IMO Cruz is not anyone's political kryptonite, certainly not outside of Texas. But if you insist on applying the term to the President and his supporters, you've got it backwards. We were political kryptonite for Ted Cruz.
And finally, you do try to give the President his due. I know how difficult that can be here ... like a salmon swimming upstream through a lot of clutter.
But outside the forum people are doing this on a daily basis. They're not posting about it or giving interviews about it. It just is what adults do. I hope your being an adult doesn't mean we can't, at times, agree to disagree.
Thanks for listening. ^-^
Wow. Totally off-topic, but that's got to be the most beautiful ice cream cone / unicorn crap I've ever seen.
Okay. Nice try but no points. So many people here have been utterly brutal to Trump and I'm wondering why you chose to direct your attack at one of the people who have attempted to be fair to him.
And everything I said was true. If anyone mentions Cruz, you Trump Lovers go ballistic and for no reason. Trump was utterly horrible to Ted Cruz and lied repeatedly about him during the campaign.
Ted Cruz did not retaliate but you cannot forgive him for telling people to 'vote their conscience.'
In the end, Ted endorsed Trump which was probably the deciding factor in his victory.
You do have some kind of unnatural attachment to Trump ... I don't know if it's love but it's certainly not just political support.
In the end, you have alienated someone who was 'kinda' on your side.
Good going.
@Emjay
Oh cmon, have an ice cream cone. :)
Can't we all just get along.....Kum By Ya
Wow. Totally off-topic, but that's got to be the most beautiful ice cream cone / unicorn crap I've ever seen.
Define "us all."In Texas, it is ya'll, if that is what you care for.
Don't do it, he's trying to feed you unicorn crap.
Except that there is a definition of morality that maintains (conserves) civilization, in our case Judeo-Christian civilization, and therefore the nation as it was intended at founding.He or she or it maintains that he or she or it decides what is moral, not God as taught by us who live by Judeo-Christian principles. Somehow, the person thinks he or she or it is 'forced' into morality. God gives everyone free will to do what one pleases; however, He clearly has consequences for deciding other than what He asks us to do.
@corbe
Weren't you just posting yesterday about showing respect for each other and stopping with the sniping?
I swear I saw you post something like that but I could be wrong.
yet you continue with the 'trumpers' labels and similar crap. Guess that didn't last long.
@libertybele
We do have a lot of conservative Governors and control of the White House, Senate, and House. What does that get us? It doesn't get us the power to push through the Conservative agenda. The GOP leadership and DNC Leadership are essentially the same. So all the Cruz's in the world really won't help until we can remove the McConnells, Ryans, McCains and other Globalists. Even the rank and file Democrats (Blue Dogs) are essentially powerless because of the Pelosi's. Most of the Blue Dogs aren't willing to sell out America but they have very little power, by design.
Under Obama local police forces couldn't even control people like Occupy without a Federal civil rights lawsuit. For all his faults Trump is putting a stop to that which is why the GOP leadership wants him gone.
Yeah,it IS that hard or we would already have it. The reason for this is there is no money and no power in being a conservative because it means you aren't a team player,and the other politicians can't count on you to throw some graft their way. Conservatism cuts into their cash flow and their power because it benefits the people more than it benefits the lawmakers.
You are old enough you should remember what the DNC and their accomplices in the alleged Republican Party and the media did to Barry Goldwater. The lies they told about him teeter on the border of criminality. He flat scared them all to death because he put country before self,and he couldn't be bought or blackmailed.
Reagan winning office was a fluke. The left consider themselves to be geniuses,and they didn't take Reagan seriously because they thought he was a slow-witted Rube. After all,if he wasn't a Rube,WHY wasn't he a leftist,right? By the time they realized he was playing them like a pimp plays a whore,it was too late to stop him.
The left and their towel boys in the alleged Republican Party have been very,very careful since then to not let a outsider gain any traction. As a result,all we have gotten for Republican candidates since Reagan were shape-shifting treasonous scum like the Bush Crime Family.
The along comes Trump. A sometimes Republican,and a sometimes Dim,all depending on who held the top offices he would need favors from or access to so he could pay the bribes.
Trump won it because the mainstream didn't take him seriously,and they and the media actually HELPED him win the nomination by continually reporting that he's "not really a politician". There was also the "NYC resident and friend to the leftist scum that run that city" thing. They figured because of that nobody that voted Republican that wasn't from the northeast would vote for him. It went right over their heads that THESE WERE THE REASONS PEOPLE DID VOTE FOR HIM.
As a result,he owes nobody anything,and he has enough money and ego to resist any "kiss,kiss,and make up" attempt they try now.
He has been demeaned and insulted,and so has his wife and children,so IMNSHO,he is determined now to prove they were wrong by being the best president he can be so he can rub their noses in it. It's alll about ego now,and nobody has a bigger ego than Trump.
You know in fact, I didn't even notice corbe used the slur 'Trumper'. That's how conditioned I have become to seeing it.
I believed corbe's post reasonable until you pointed that out. It's a little thing, I know. But, it means a lot. Careful choice of words show a certain level of respect. It's gotta start somewhere.
You know in fact, I didn't even notice corbe used the slur 'Trumper'. That's how conditioned I have become to seeing it.
I believed corbe's post reasonable until you pointed that out. It's a little thing, I know. But, it means a lot. Careful choice of words show a certain level of respect. It's gotta start somewhere.
Good grief you guys are thin-skinned! How is "Trumper" a slur? That's ridiculous.
Because it's coming from folks whom we see and interact with every day. I enjoy being with people that I like. I try not to put up barriers, but being a Trump supporter seems barrier enough around here when confronted with names like 'Trump lovers'.
Most Republicans are conservative.
Some, however, are not the peculiar variant known as social conservatives. There is a tension between social conservatives and those with more libertarian views regarding religious values being promoted by government in the public sphere.
That doesn't mean the GOP coalition is illegitimate or not fundamentally "conservative" in nature.
You know in fact, I didn't even notice corbe used the slur 'Trumper'. That's how conditioned I have become to seeing it.Hmmm, Trumper is a slur, but NeverTrumper is not, verrry interrresting (http://i62.tinypic.com/ibb51l.jpg)
I believed corbe's post reasonable until you pointed that out. It's a little thing, I know. But, it means a lot. Careful choice of words show a certain level of respect. It's gotta start somewhere.
Because it's coming from folks whom we see and interact with every day. I enjoy being with people that I like. I try not to put up barriers, but being a Trump supporter seems barrier enough around here when confronted with names like 'Trump lovers'.
Thanks to the radical Democrat Party today, the chasm is as deep.
Therefore. anyone with a GOP affiliation may claim some level of Conservatism. And they wouldn't be lying when held up against the opposition.
:odrama:
So I guess to you the nasty names and things said about people here who don't share your enthusiasm for all things Donny either doesn't matter or is justified?
Wait just a darn minute. I have been named drama queen extraordinaire around here. Is another attempting to take my title??? :nono: 8888crybaby
:silly: :silly: :silly:
Because it's coming from folks whom we see and interact with every day. I enjoy being with people that I like. I try not to put up barriers, but being a Trump supporter seems barrier enough around here when confronted with names like 'Trump lovers'.
Because it's coming from folks whom we see and interact with every day. I enjoy being with people that I like. I try not to put up barriers, but being a Trump supporter seems barrier enough around here when confronted with names like 'Trump lovers'.
So, when I was called a "Cruzer" in the primaries, I should have been offended? Who knew? :shrug:
Hmmm, Trumper is a slur, but NeverTrumper is not, verrry interrresting (http://i62.tinypic.com/ibb51l.jpg)
Except that there is a definition of morality that maintains (conserves) civilization, in our case Judeo-Christian civilization, and therefore the nation as it was intended at founding.
@INVAR
uh huh, yeah right. And unicorns can crap icecream
And therein lies the absolute limit of your ability to argue or debate anything.
About the same level of your average Antifa protestor.
And therein lies the absolute limit of your ability to argue or debate anything.
About the same level of your average Antifa protestor.
Hmm. Brought up an interesting point. I'll take a stab.Really this is a little over the top, I don't see it as an insult when I say Trumper and probably you don't see it as an insult if you were to say NeverTrumper, now if I were to use a term I have in the past in the heat of primaries like sTrumpettes, that would be and was intended to be imflamatory. I just don't see getting bent out of shape over what are basicly innocuous descriptive terms. We should save our outrage for what is actually serious.
Couple of points. This is all from memory, but didn't National Review declare themselves NeverTrump. So, as a group of conservatives and republicans who have taken that stance, how best to refer to them?
Donald Trump is one person who sought the voting public's support and got it.
I buy a magazine. I support a president.
Sorry, best I can do at the moment.
You know in fact, I didn't even notice corbe used the slur 'Trumper'. That's how conditioned I have become to seeing it.Well, now that you have established that "trumper" is offensive to you, then I would assume you would find it offensive with the prefix "never", as well. Like putting "Mother" in front of another word people find offensive, it doesn't seem to lessen the vitriolic nature of most comments.
I believed corbe's post reasonable until you pointed that out. It's a little thing, I know. But, it means a lot. Careful choice of words show a certain level of respect. It's gotta start somewhere.
That's a pantload, AC and you know it. You wouldn't think twice about calling somebody a "Cruzer," the primary difference being the supporter of Cruz wouldn't take the slightest offense to it. "Trumper" is the biggest flop of a pejorative I've ever seen. I'd insist they do better if they want to insult me.I used to say "Trump Supporter", but then I thought about those who support athletics, and I just couldn't continue to type with a straight face.
Well, now that you have established that "trumper" is offensive to you, then I would assume you would find it offensive with the prefix "never", as well. Like putting "Mother" in front of another word people find offensive, it doesn't seem to lessen the vitriolic nature of most comments.
I just don't see getting bent out of shape over what are basically innocuous descriptive terms. We should save our outrage for what is actually serious.
Trumper, Trumper, Trumper, Trumper .... Trump Supporter ... Trump Supporter ... Trump Supporter. Trumpster, Trumpster, Trumpster... Good grief. What's the big deal? Can we please get back on topic?
^^^^^This right here.
Trumper, Trumper, Trumper, Trumper .... Trump Supporter ... Trump Supporter ... Trump Supporter. Trumpster, Trumpster, Trumpster... Good grief. What's the big deal? Can we please get back on topic?(http://i49.tinypic.com/260ww1f.jpg)
Really this is a little over the top, I don't see it as an insult when I say Trumper and probably you don't see it as an insult if you were to say NeverTrumper, now if I were to use a term I have in the past in the heat of primaries like sTrumpettes, that would be and was intended to be imflamatory. I just don't see getting bent out of shape over what are basicly innocuous descriptive terms. We should save our outrage for what is actually serious.
@Cyber LibertyDude, it's not like this is practiced by one group only (http://i39.tinypic.com/2i0axk8.jpg)
The constant use of negative pejoratives to refer to people who support Trump is childish. You get called on it and do nothing but whine and cry.
Dude, it's not like this is practiced by one group only (http://i39.tinypic.com/2i0axk8.jpg)
@Cyber Liberty
The constant use of negative pejoratives to refer to people who support Trump is childish. You get called on it and do nothing but whine and cry.
@GtHawkWow I have had enough of the poor little me crap on this thread, it's amazing I thought we were supposed to be adults but that can't be, adults can't be as easily as offended as this on a Conservative forum..........can they? It's more like listening to a bunch of whiny millennial victims. Count me out, Adios, Auf Wiedersehen, Chow,
You're right. The leftists and RNC rhinos also commonly use it. As the more eloquent @aligncare stated it's used to demean by those groups as well.
@Cyber Liberty
The constant use of negative pejoratives to refer to people who support Trump is childish. You get called on it and do nothing but whine and cry.
@GtHawk
You're right. The leftists and RNC rhinos also commonly use it. As the more eloquent @aligncare stated it's used to demean by those groups as well.
And that's a critical point; a flaw in NeverTrump, where they can't quite unshackle themselves from that commonality they share with leftist and democrats – visceral, intense (take your pick) dislike for Donald Trump.
And that's a critical point; a flaw in NeverTrump, where they can't quite unshackle themselves from that commonality they share with leftist and democrats – visceral, intense (take your pick) dislike for Donald Trump.
Bovine fecal matter! 100% USDA Choice!
Your just baiting us azzhole NeverTrumpers with that dribble aren't you @aligncare
And, on a tread regarding replacing the Republican Party, the subject of Donald Trump is completely on topic, NeverTrump is completely on topic. Donald Trump has redefined politics today and uncovered the greatest rift in the Republican Party since Goldwater.
And, on a tread regarding replacing the Republican Party, the subject of Donald Trump is completely on topic, NeverTrump is completely on topic. Donald Trump has redefined politics today and uncovered the greatest rift in the Republican Party since Goldwater.
What a bunch of crybaby, false butthurt, bullcrap.
All y'all need to go back to kindergarten.Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
You're saying no one here we interact with everyday has a visceral dislike of Donald Trump? Astounding.
You're saying no one here we interact with everyday has a visceral dislike of Donald Trump? Astounding.
President Trump IS the Republican Party, WE Conservatives left it awhile back, if there is a chasm, it's because yall can't get your shit together. Don't have to be Ms Cleo to predict that was gonna happen.
PS: No doubt in my mind that a President Cruz would have had major difficulties dealing with those imbeciles, also.
President Trump IS the Republican Party, WE Conservatives left it awhile back, if there is a chasm, it's because yall can't get your shit together. Don't have to be Ms Cleo to predict that was gonna happen.
PS: No doubt in my mind that a President Cruz would have had major difficulties dealing with those imbeciles, also.
I'm saying that you and a few others around here need to get over your damned selves and move on! Biggest bunch of sore winners I have ever encountered by far!
@roamer_1
Are you really threatened that much?
Thank you, Bigun. Your suggestion for my self improvement is duly noted and appreciated.
Donald Trump has done so much of what conservatives have been crying for for many years in his first 7-8 months of office, I simply don't have time to list it all. And he's just getting started.
Good! This crap is getting REALLY tiresome! I was and still remain a Cruzer Donald J. Trump is the president and I have fully come to grips with the fact. Maybe you should as well!
Donald Trump has done so much of what conservatives have been crying for for many years in his first 7-8 months of office, I simply don't have time to list it all. And he's just getting started.
Good! This crap is getting REALLY tiresome! I was and still remain a Cruzer Donald J. Trump is the president and I have fully come to grips with the fact. Maybe you should as well!
Good! This crap is getting REALLY tiresome! I was and still remain a Cruzer Donald J. Trump is the president and I have fully come to grips with the fact. Maybe you should as well!
Well I hope I don't disappoint you, being a Cruzer and all. Very important Trump keeps all the support he can.
@Smokin JoeNot once in that post did I attack Trump. Not once in that post did I attack anyone. If you want to be offended, have at, enjoy! It's still a nominally free country and everyone should have a hobby. Enjoy, fellow Citizen!
Why do you always have to use a negative to refer to someone who doesnt condemn trump on whatever the current attack Trump talking point of the day?
Can't you show respect for a fellow American?
(http://i49.tinypic.com/260ww1f.jpg)
We can leave the name 'jerk' off that list. Apparently it passes the selection committee.
There's a committee? I think you should tell the greenhorns about "the committee." In all fairness. I'm waiting with baited breath to hear about the committee of which you speak.
I am head of that *committee*
@Bigun please edit your post...
Donald Trump has appointed Gorsuch, (Thank You, also Sen. Cruz) and a few excellent Cabinet members, cut back a ton of economy crippling regulations, put the EPA on a leash, all the rest is just show and tell. IMHO
Vets are still dying in record numbers, DACA (EO) is still on the books, but the MSM is pissed, so I should be happy, right?
Some think they are conservative when they are not. There are some principles that one cannot compromise and still remain conservative.
Don't forget we still have Obamacare and I have seen nary a tax cut.
I made a mistake on the post you quoted. You have to go back up to see the correction.
I misread it. This is a list of approved slurs we can call each other. Won't that be fun. Would you like that, kiddies?
Don't forget we still have Obamacare and I have seen nary a tax cut.
@Mom MD
Saying someone is a conservative or not a conservative all depends on the POV of the speaker. Michael Moore would consider Lenin to be a conservative,and Barry Goldwater to be a Nazi. From the point of view of the insane imaginary world or Koo Koo Koko-Puffs he lives on,he is right.
Thus all the arguments. MY definition of "conservative" means someone that adheres to the standards set forth in the Declaration of Independence,the Bill of Rights,and the rest of the US Constitution. Sticking by what a bunch of "old white guys" thought a couple of hundred years ago makes me a fire-breathing radical to of todays Dims,and most of todays alleged Republicans. None the less,that IS my POV,and I'm sticking with it as the ideal to work towards.
@driftdiver
Not threatened at all. I ain't the one whining for safe spaces.
All I am is disgusted.
@JazzheadQuoteWe may disagree on the government's role regarding abortion, for example,
There will NEVER be a majority agreement on abortion rights,regardless of who sets the standards. There are loons that have religious dogma barking in their ear that a woman MUST give birth even it it is guaranteed to kill her because somehow Gawd loves to see mothers did and leave motherless children behind,and the loons in opposition insists that women have right to abort children after live birth.
MOST of us are somewhere in the middle-ground,but no larger middle-ground exists anywhere in the known universe. Two people who disagree on ONE aspect will start shrieking in horror and indignation once that ONE aspect it brought into a discussion where they had been agreeing on everything else.
It is probably the greatest moral dilemma of our time and I have no intention of arguing or discussing it here. Just accept there are wildly different opinions that are passionately held,and leave it at that.
That can't be laid solely at the feet of Donald Trump. I'm sure if Pres. Trump could do it in an EO he would have already.
There's always congresscritters to deal with and their agendas.
I made a mistake on the post you quoted. You have to go back up to see the correction.
I misread it. This is a list of approved slurs we can call each other. Won't that be fun. Would you like that, kiddies?
@roamer_1
Nobody said anything about a safe space. That is a logical fallacy.
A safe space is where an idea can't be threatened. Ive said nothing about not challenging ideas. Wait I guess there is a movement to make this place a safe space. One where anyone who supports any action of Trump is ridiculed and demeaned with impunity. And should they say anything about that even in a respectful way it scared people so much that they run away or hurl more insults.
@roamer_1
Nobody said anything about a safe space. That is a logical fallacy.
A safe space is where an idea can't be threatened. Ive said nothing about not challenging ideas. Wait I guess there is a movement to make this place a safe space. One where anyone who supports any action of Trump is ridiculed and demeaned with impunity. And should they say anything about that even in a respectful way it scared people so much that they run away or hurl more insults.
Moral relativism is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. While relativity works in physics, it does not in politics, religion or morality. While I agree with your definition of conservatism, there needs to be one definition of the conservative party or platform against which all are measured - not your definition or mine. Then everyone knows what the definition of a conservative is, and can decide if they agree enough to join the party or not. I am old fashioned enough to believe there is an absolute truth and an absolute standard that does not change with the whims of modern culture.
There, I said it: I love Donald Trump. :silly:
@Mom MD
I think everyone here would agree that moral relativism got us into this mess. The real world isn't black and white and we are often forced to pick between two seriously imperfect candidates. The real questioon is what do we do about it.
Do we; just stop voting, vote for our perfect candidate who has no chance of winning, or vote for who we think has the best chance while being reasonably acceptable.
All of this is complicated by the media and a very chaotic election cycle. Also by opponents who do anything and everything to gum up the works. Then there's corruption and people inside our country working to bring it down.
I think the real question is where do we go from here. I've chosen to make lemonade. Do the best we can to move back from the edge and work to support better candidates in the future.
In the history of this country we have had very very few perfect candidates. But let's say we dump the GOP and build a new party. That will take decades. What will the leftists do in the meantime?
I'll say one last thing. Now that Donald Trump is head of the Republican Party there's a lot of talk about replacing the Republican Party. Coincidence? NeverTrump agitprop? Solar eclipse? You decide.
Leftists will continue to do what they are doing now. Winning. Watching the chaos on the right. It may take years to build a conservative party from the ground up, but it will take longer if we never start. Its not like we are getting anywhere now.
I'll say one last thing. Now that Donald Trump is head of the Republican Party there's a lot of talk about replacing the Republican Party. Coincidence? NeverTrump agitprop? Solar eclipse? You decide.
I'll say one last thing.
Leftists will continue to do what they are doing now. Winning. Watching the chaos on the right. It may take years to build a conservative party from the ground up, but it will take longer if we never start. Its not like we are getting anywhere now.
A lot of people have been saying it for quite a while. It just took Donald Trump as head of the Republican Party for the dumbest among us to believe them.
As the Mod noted earlier in the thread - this is what the Trump Faithful/Trump Militant/Trump Supporters/AlwaysTrump/GOP Party Hacks/Establishment Bootlickers ALWAYS, ALWAYS do to threads that hit too close to home with the truth, which is to say it is the same exact tactic the Communist Left does to anyone noting the truth within their spheres of influence...
... they turn the thread into an insult brawl to get the topic shut down.
Which if they succeed in doing, I will merely repost the OP, again and again.
Because the topic of discussion is the absolute necessity of replacing the Republican Party as your party if you are a Conservative, because it needs to go the way of the Whigs.
I'll say one last thing. Now that Donald Trump is head of the Republican Party there's a lot of talk about replacing the Republican Party. Coincidence? NeverTrump agitprop? Solar eclipse? You decide.
I knew they screwed the pooch and were capable of anything when they tried to pass Romney off as a Conservative, that was my red line.
Don't forget we still have Obamacare and I have seen nary a tax cut.
I knew they screwed the pooch and were capable of anything when they tried to pass Romney off as a Conservative, that was my red line.
Romney's accomplished one heckuva a lot more than Cruz, the Ted Cruz, Glen Beck smear machine may be well greased so they should expect it back.
At least, they are capable of anything, Graham, Cruz, seem capable of nothing.
If one reads the original article, the author, CoDevilla puts that blame at the feet of the Senate.
Not the house and the president wasn't even mentioned.
I think we are suppose to discuss the article posted.
You're still smarting from that "Vote you conscience" thing, aren't you?
@Mom MD
In my opinion it will take the rest of this countries existence to create a new party powerful enough to take the white house and Congress.
Far easier to pass term limits and repeal the 17th amendment.
Well, when I consciously remember the quote, I know I am. Under the guise of "conscience" Cruz was saying "I don't support Donald Trump for President". Scratch the surface of this statement a little deeper, and he was saying: "I can live with Hillary Clinton as POTUS".
Like it or not, Cruz was and will remain frozen in that moment in time a small-minded, whining, self-serving politician prepared to sell out this nation for four years because his feelings were hurt. Insult to this self-inflicted injury: This was his choice. :shrug:
THAT is the biggest departure from logic I have ever witnessed on this forum by a WIDE margin!
@Bigun, I love ya. And I don't agree. I stand by my post and my request that the wound from Cruz's decision be allowed to heal ... and it won't if the scab keeps being pulled off by people who cannot accept the reality that was in front of them that night in August.
I suggest that it is you who keeps insisting on pulling it off dear!
If one reads the original article, the author, CoDevilla puts that blame at the feet of the Senate.
Not the house and the president wasn't even mentioned.
I think we are suppose to discuss the article posted.
Well, when I consciously remember the quote, I know I am. Under the guise of "conscience" Cruz was saying "I don't support Donald Trump for President". Scratch the surface of this statement a little deeper, and he was saying: "I can live with Hillary Clinton as POTUS".
Like it or not, Cruz was and will remain frozen in that moment in time a small-minded, whining, self-serving politician prepared to sell out this nation for four years because his feelings were hurt. Insult to this self-inflicted injury: This was his choice. :shrug:
The only way Cruz will be on solid national footing again is if people stop pulling off the scab and let this heal.
??? You certainly have a different perspective on things than I. Cruz is on more solid footing now then before the election. Like it or not many conservatives didn't want DJT for President and if it weren't for Cruz later stating that he was going to vote for him to stop Hillary and was promised that Trump would nominate a conservative SCOTUS; Trump would have lost. Many conservatives were and some still are upset with Cruz for publicly announcing he was voting for Trump; not the fact that he said to vote one's conscious. We should all vote our conscious for heaven's sake; to do otherwise is a wasted vote! To tell someone not to vote their conscious is absolutely absurd.
As the Mod noted earlier in the thread - this is what the Trump Faithful/Trump Militant/Trump Supporters/AlwaysTrump/GOP Party Hacks/Establishment Bootlickers ALWAYS, ALWAYS do to threads that hit too close to home with the truth, which is to say it is the same exact tactic the Communist Left does to anyone noting the truth within their spheres of influence...I didn't leave the GOP, it left me. I still believe in the same principles I did back when. However, when I walked into the district Caucus and was informed (sans vote) that "W" is going to be our candidate--no idscussion, no vote, not even a shouting match, my attitude went right down the crapper. Well, If you don't want my input, what am I doing here? and I left. I never went back. It took a few years, but I noticed the same attitude on a certain website, and I voted with my little electronic feet on that issue, too.
... they turn the thread into an insult brawl to get the topic shut down.
Which if they succeed in doing, I will merely repost the OP, again and again.
Because the topic of discussion is the absolute necessity of replacing the Republican Party as your party if you are a Conservative, because it needs to go the way of the Whigs.
No, @Bigun I'm begging you to let go of the Trump v Cruz :bs: It's over. Let it go.
Keep bringing up the primary and dissing Trump because he won and Cruz lost, just keeps the wound open and Cruz will be the loser for it.
Your choice.
To tell someone not to vote their conscious is absolutely absurd.
No, @Bigun I'm begging you to let go of the Trump v Cruz :bs: It's over. Let it go.
Keep bringing up the primary and dissing Trump because he won and Cruz lost, just keeps the wound open and Cruz will be the loser for it.
Your choice.
When was the last time you heard someone say "vote your conscience" at a national convention? The answer is: "never".
Cruz wasn't talking about "conscience", he was talking about revenge, settling a score with the party's nominee.
Don't confuse the two. It was a monumental mistake ... which is why Cruz's donors were slamming doors in his face after he pulled this crap. His donors knew he was saying: "Don't vote for Trump". His donors knew he was saying: "I'll run again after four years of Hillary".
Again, my advice as someone who appreciates what Cruz brings to the Republican Caucus, please stop debating this. There are far too many voters, registered Republican voters, who understand what happened on that stage during the convention. Stop reminding them.
In the name God ... move on.
Yes, and it's those same whiners, over and over again.
I have let it go and done everything possible to be fair to Trump. YOU and a few others here go into convulsions at the meer mention of the name Cruz! I submit that it is you and your friends who have psychological problems!
YOU are insane! Follow your own advice!
I submit you are wrong, yet again.
I value the contributions of Senator Cruz and am asking you to let this go for his good ... not your and not mine ... his.
And at this point, my friend, I don't give a rat's arse if you believe me. Just don't goad the Republican electorate any further with this BS.
@Bigun
When was the last time you heard someone say "vote your conscience" at a national convention? The answer is: "never".
Cruz wasn't talking about "conscience", he was talking about revenge, settling a score with the party's nominee.
Don't confuse the two. It was a monumental mistake ... which is why Cruz's donors were slamming doors in his face after he pulled this crap. His donors knew he was saying: "Don't vote for Trump". His donors knew he was saying: "I'll run again after four years of Hillary".
Again, my advice as someone who appreciates what Cruz brings to the Republican Caucus, please stop debating this. There are far too many voters, registered Republican voters, who understand what happened on that stage during the convention. Stop reminding them.
In the name God ... move on.
I'll stop debating this when you do. STOP! Just STOP! The primaries are over.
Oh, and as to the "insane" comment @Bigun ... I tried to be civil, now you can bite me.
Oh bullcrap. When people are whining and crying and throwing dirt in the air about something as innocuous as 'Trumper', that's nothing but a cry for safe spaces.Actually, all this really takes me back to race riots in high school. This isn't a question of racism, but when you are asked a question or refer to something and no matter what you say it will offend, it is only the heartfelt desire to retain my own dignity that keeps me from engaging in vitriol. Supporters, indeed.
PC-baiting idiocy that belongs on the left.
If one reads the original article, the author, CoDevilla puts that blame at the feet of the Senate.
Not the house and the president wasn't even mentioned.
..."in 2017, there are no longer reasons to vote Republican any more than there were to vote Whig after 1854.
...The Whigs, like today’s Republicans, contained a substantial percentage of prominent people whose interests and ideas are hardly distinguishable from those of Democrats.
..."When Congressional Republicans and Democrats together affirmed Obamacare; as they set about financing the health insurance industry in explicit contradiction of law; as every branch of the permanent government continues to have its unaccountable way with Americans; as a foreign policy of indecisive warfare continues despite popular opposition, there is no doubt that today’s America is ruled by a single ruling party and that the Republican Party is part of that party rather than an alternative to it."
..."Why vote Republican when that results, rhetoric aside, in being governed as by Democrats? America needs a true alternative to our ruling Uni-party, a true second party."
I think we are suppose to discuss the article posted.
YOU are still barking up the wrong tree @Right_in_Virginia! I invite you to find a single post of mine that brings up Senator Cruz on this forum in months prior to this conversation.
I'll say one last thing. Now that Donald Trump is head of the Republican Party there's a lot of talk about replacing the Republican Party. Coincidence? NeverTrump agitprop? Solar eclipse? You decide.Ronna McDaniel is the Chair of the RNC, Bob Paduchik is co-Chair, at least according to their website. Trump is President of the United States. I did not see Donald trump listed in the GOP leadership, even if he is all over their webpage.
Cruz is an excellent Senator and we are lucky to have him.
If some want to keep pitting Cruz against Trump by replaying the primaries .... it will circle back and hurt Cruz on the national stage.
I'm simply suggesting the primaries are over and it's time to let the old battle go. :shrug:
Romney's accomplished one heckuva a lot more than Cruz, the Ted Cruz, Glen Beck smear machine may be well greased so they should expect it back.Sure Romney has accomplished a lot, but not much in the way of conservatism. Giving Massachusetts Obamacare's predecessor, as an example. Letting the worst President in the history of this country get re-elected as he was a terrible candidate.
At least, they are capable of anything, Graham, Cruz, seem capable of nothing.
May be that Cruz doesn't think the way you do and he actually meant what he said.
:amen: Funny, Cruz has been known to do that quite often!Say just what he means? Yeah, I noticed that years ago, before the primaries were even being talked about.
A new party?We'd like to set the taxpayers free of the burden of an arbitrary and capricious Federal Government grown in scope and power far beyond original intent. That's an emancipation that could benefit everyone.
:nothappen:
While the author of this piece in the OP lauds Honest Abe's stance, others have said the worse of him. And that was one of abolition.
One needs to see what the author Codevilla says, not go by any words he said.
We need to see the premise of what is being tossed out there as having nothing to do with that article. :threadjack:
We'd like to set the taxpayers free of the burden of an arbitrary and capricious Federal Government grown in scope and power far beyond original intent. That's an emancipation that could benefit everyone.
We'd like to set the taxpayers free of the burden of an arbitrary and capricious Federal Government grown in scope and power far beyond original intent. That's an emancipation that could benefit everyone.
When was the last time you heard someone say "vote your conscience" at a national convention? The answer is: "never".
.....
@libertybele
That I can fix for you. All you crybabies want is an echo chamber. Have at it. Bye
Again, my advice as someone who appreciates what Cruz brings to the Republican Caucus, please stop debating this.
There are far too many voters, registered Republican voters, who understand what happened on that stage during the convention.
Stop reminding them.
In the name God ... move on.
Customary that the losing candidates come together behind their party's standard bearer. That didn't happen as seamlessly as it could have. Cruz was angry at the Republican Party, as well as still being angry at Trump. Did he think attendees at the convention and television viewers wouldn't notice?
President Trump IS the Republican Party, WE Conservatives left it awhile back, if there is a chasm, it's because yall can't get your shit together. Don't have to be Ms Cleo to predict that was gonna happen.
PS: No doubt in my mind that a President Cruz would have had major difficulties dealing with those imbeciles, also.
Customary that the losing candidates come together behind their party's standard bearer. That didn't happen as seamlessly as it could have. Cruz was angry at the Republican Party, as well as still being angry at Trump. Did he think attendees at the convention and television viewers wouldn't notice?Spend months calling me a liar, disrespect my wife, have your pals come out with bogus articles about how I have seven mistresses, my dad supposedly was in league with Oswald in the Kennedy assassination, my wife is a diabolical architect of the Global takeover, but at the same time is having a nervous breakdown and mentally unstable, and with every breath aimed in my direction call me a liar.
Customary that the losing candidates come together behind their party's standard bearer. That didn't happen as seamlessly as it could have. Cruz was angry at the Republican Party, as well as still being angry at Trump. Did he think attendees at the convention and television viewers wouldn't notice?
Wrong. President Trump is the current President. He is not the Republican party and you may have left the party but most conservatives haven't because the party is our best chance for achieving conservative goals.You keep believing that, sweetie. Bless your heart.
Customary that the losing candidates come together behind their party's standard bearer. That didn't happen as seamlessly as it could have. Cruz was angry at the Republican Party, as well as still being angry at Trump. Did he think attendees at the convention and television viewers wouldn't notice?
@Mom MD
I think everyone here would agree that moral relativism got us into this mess. The real world isn't black and white and we are often forced to pick between two seriously imperfect candidates. The real questioon is what do we do about it.
Do we; just stop voting, vote for our perfect candidate who has no chance of winning, or vote for who we think has the best chance while being reasonably acceptable.
All of this is complicated by the media and a very chaotic election cycle. Also by opponents who do anything and everything to gum up the works. Then there's corruption and people inside our country working to bring it down.
I think the real question is where do we go from here. I've chosen to make lemonade. Do the best we can to move back from the edge and work to support better candidates in the future.
In the history of this country we have had very very few perfect candidates. But let's say we dump the GOP and build a new party. That will take decades. What will the leftists do in the meantime?
What you don't seem to understand AC is that Cruz was being true to HIS conscience and to his supporters.
At any rate .... DRUM ROLL (http://worldartsme.com/images/drum-roll-clipart-1.jpg)
The topic is: Replacing the Republican Party.
Since the Constitution Party has been brought up throughout this thread; I noticed that they've revamped their webpage. The party of "Integrity, Liberty and Prosperity":
https://www.constitutionparty.com/
You keep believing that, sweetie. Bless your heart.
Well, when I consciously remember the quote, I know I am. Under the guise of "conscience" Cruz was saying "I don't support Donald Trump for President". Scratch the surface of this statement a little deeper, and he was saying: "I can live with Hillary Clinton as POTUS".
Like it or not, Cruz was and will remain frozen in that moment in time a small-minded, whining, self-serving politician prepared to sell out this nation for four years because his feelings were hurt. Insult to this self-inflicted injury: This was his choice. :shrug:
The only way Cruz will be on solid national footing again is if people stop pulling off the scab and let this heal.
This asinine pie-in-the sky movement suggested by malcontents is the stupidest thing ever.
Even if it had a snowball's chance in the hot place of happening, you are right, it would take decades. Decades in which a fractured Republican party would lose to the socialist, communist leftist bunch that we just got rid of after 8 years.
I can't stand those people. They have a superiority complex because they are so dam good, they can't accept anything less than perfect. They don't actually suggest any small steps toward what we want. Small steps can get you there. But no, throw them all out.
Frankly, they are as sickening as Trump lovers, or whatever the current acceptable term has been decreed t be.
Cruz is the better man. That's why you Trump lovers hate him so much.
Feelings hurt? I'll show you feelings hurt. Trump lied about Cruz all during the primaries. He lied about Cruz's father. He lied about Cruz's wife. I like Melania but Trump using a screen grab of Heidi next to a studio shot of Melania was really the lowest possible act.
During all that, Cruz remained a gentleman. He never lied about Trump or abused his family.
The worst thing he ever did was say "Vote your Conscience." And that is something we should all do.
Cruz is a brilliant constitutional scholar. He has a sophisticated vocabulary and knows adjectives beyond 'very.' He has true conservative principles.
He is ten times the man Trump is.
And that's what scares you people.
good post...I enjoyed it
good post...I enjoyed it
This asinine pie-in-the sky movement suggested by malcontents is the stupidest thing ever.
Even if it had a snowball's chance in the hot place of happening, you are right, it would take decades. Decades in which a fractured Republican party would lose to the socialist, communist leftist bunch that we just got rid of after 8 years.
I can't stand those people. They have a superiority complex because they are so dam good, they can't accept anything less than perfect. They don't actually suggest any small steps toward what we want. Small steps can get you there. But no, throw them all out.
Frankly, they are as sickening as Trump lovers, or whatever the current acceptable term has been decreed t be.
Cruz is the better man. That's why you Trump lovers hate him so much.
Cruz is the better man. That's why you Trump lovers hate him so much.
Feelings hurt? I'll show you feelings hurt. Trump lied about Cruz all during the primaries. He lied about Cruz's father. He lied about Cruz's wife. I like Melania but Trump using a screen grab of Heidi next to a studio shot of Melania was really the lowest possible act.
During all that, Cruz remained a gentleman. He never lied about Trump or abused his family.
The worst thing he ever did was say "Vote your Conscience." And that is something we should all do.
Cruz is a brilliant constitutional scholar. He has a sophisticated vocabulary and knows adjectives beyond 'very.' He has true conservative principles.
He is ten times the man Trump is.
And that's what scares you people.
Cruz is the better man. That's why you Trump lovers hate him so much.
Feelings hurt? I'll show you feelings hurt. Trump lied about Cruz all during the primaries. He lied about Cruz's father. He lied about Cruz's wife. I like Melania but Trump using a screen grab of Heidi next to a studio shot of Melania was really the lowest possible act.
During all that, Cruz remained a gentleman. He never lied about Trump or abused his family.
The worst thing he ever did was say "Vote your Conscience." And that is something we should all do.
Cruz is a brilliant constitutional scholar. He has a sophisticated vocabulary and knows adjectives beyond 'very.' He has true conservative principles.
He is ten times the man Trump is.
And that's what scares you people.
@Emjay are you OK?
:beer:
Cruz is the better man. That's why you Trump lovers hate him so much.
Feelings hurt? I'll show you feelings hurt. Trump lied about Cruz all during the primaries. He lied about Cruz's father. He lied about Cruz's wife. I like Melania but Trump using a screen grab of Heidi next to a studio shot of Melania was really the lowest possible act.
During all that, Cruz remained a gentleman. He never lied about Trump or abused his family.
The worst thing he ever did was say "Vote your Conscience." And that is something we should all do.
Cruz is a brilliant constitutional scholar. He has a sophisticated vocabulary and knows adjectives beyond 'very.' He has true conservative principles.
He is ten times the man Trump is.
And that's what scares you people.
Cruz is the better man. That's why you Trump lovers hate him so much.
Feelings hurt? I'll show you feelings hurt. Trump lied about Cruz all during the primaries. He lied about Cruz's father. He lied about Cruz's wife. I like Melania but Trump using a screen grab of Heidi next to a studio shot of Melania was really the lowest possible act.
During all that, Cruz remained a gentleman. He never lied about Trump or abused his family.
The worst thing he ever did was say "Vote your Conscience." And that is something we should all do.
Cruz is a brilliant constitutional scholar. He has a sophisticated vocabulary and knows adjectives beyond 'very.' He has true conservative principles.
He is ten times the man Trump is.
And that's what scares you people.
This asinine pie-in-the sky movement suggested by malcontents is the stupidest thing ever.Cockiness and so much self-assurance when one does not comprehend or imagine alternatives exist.
Even if it had a snowball's chance in the hot place of happening, you are right, it would take decades. Decades in which a fractured Republican party would lose to the socialist, communist leftist bunch that we just got rid of after 8 years.
I can't stand those people. They have a superiority complex because they are so dam good, they can't accept anything less than perfect. They don't actually suggest any small steps toward what we want. Small steps can get you there. But no, throw them all out.
Frankly, they are as sickening as Trump lovers, or whatever the current acceptable term has been decreed t be.
@Emjay are you OK?
:beer:
Cockiness and so much self-assurance when one does not comprehend or imagine alternatives exist.
The Whigs thought they were the light of the country at one time. Only took about 2 decades for them to begin, have 4 US Presidents claimed, then drop into the ash-heap of history.
Happened before, can happen again.
Sticking it to conservatives by nominating guys like Bushes, Romneys and McCains is most assuredly choosing the same path of obsolesence for the GOP as it surrenders its fight by choosing to join forces with the left by being somewhere in the squishy middle..
Conservatives can win, there is no doubt.
.... you may have left the party but most conservatives haven't because the party is our best chance for achieving conservative goals.
The most recent history shows that Ross Perot built the organization to unseat incumbent GHWB in less than 16 months. Truly I believe Trump did that too, taped into that same populist vein of the American politic. It can be done.
If you seriously think that you can establish some kind of third party, I wish you well.What your brain refuses to comprehend is that the Republican are in fact a third party, formed after the demise of the Whigs.
What is your first step and how long do you think it will take and what will happen in the meantime?
Just a few relevant questions.
After over 520 posts, this is a simple statement of fact; of the Truth.
.... you may have left the party but most conservatives haven't because the party is our best chance for achieving conservative goals.
snip
Do you REALLY think things would be better with a President Ted Cruz?
snip
There is a better chance that they would be WORSE.
Wasn't Cruz already in conflict with McConnell, before the primaries?
Quote from: Emjay on Today at 09:14:46 PM
.... you may have left the party but most conservatives haven't because the party is our best chance for achieving conservative goals.
After over 520 posts, this is a simple statement of fact; of the Truth.
You people can laud Ted Cruz all you want.
Do you REALLY think things would be better with a President Ted Cruz?
The intimation by McConnell that with a POTUS with more political experience that things would get done?
WHERE is the health care reform?
WHERE is the immigration reform?
WHERE is the tax reform?
nonexistent
I'm telling you with a more "experienced POTUS" things wouldn't have magically gotten better.
There is a better chance that they would be WORSE.
Well, when I consciously remember the quote, I know I am. Under the guise of "conscience" Cruz was saying "I don't support Donald Trump for President". Scratch the surface of this statement a little deeper, and he was saying: "I can live with Hillary Clinton as POTUS".
Like it or not, Cruz was and will remain frozen in that moment in time a small-minded, whining, self-serving politician prepared to sell out this nation for four years because his feelings were hurt. Insult to this self-inflicted injury: This was his choice. :shrug:
Do you REALLY think things would be better with a President Ted Cruz?
No, @Bigun I'm begging you to let go of the Trump v Cruz :bs: It's over. Let it go.
Keep bringing up the primary and dissing Trump because he won and Cruz lost, just keeps the wound open and Cruz will be the loser for it.
Your choice.
Wasn't Cruz already in conflict with McConnell, before the primaries?
Oh really? Please list the fruits of the thirty years that prove your party is the best chance for achieving Conservative goals.
Where are we MORE Conservative in this country by the hand of the GOP than we were 30 years ago? I keep watching you people move the goalposts Left and declare Touchdown! at your own 30 yard line.
I see a nation that has become a Socialist Democracy in those 30 intervening years since Reagan. I've watched your party's promises become as worthless as dried up burnt leaves in a windstorm. I've watched your party go to war on Conservatives, marginalize them, threaten them and write them out of relevance in the rules changes they have made, while embracing just about every single Democrat agenda-item on the docket including funding and refusing to repeal or rescind abject tyranny passed in the middle of the night without a single representative having read the bill.
No. That statement is NOT the truth. It's what people who do not want to be told that Santa and the Easter Bunny are not real do to hold onto the illusions they repeat to themselves so as to rest comfortably in their Normalcy Bias.
No one is saying that the 'obstructionism' by the RINO's would be any less under Cruz; what has been said is Cruz is the better person. Trump has created a lot of the resistance he's experiencing for being such a pompous, crude, arrogant, lying, s.o.b. during the campaign. Meanwhile ... you have the DEMS absolutely befuddled because they thought that Hillary had the presidency in the bag and the RINO's are befuddled because with Hillary at least their country club wouldn't have been upset. Who knows how the RINO's would have adjusted to a President Cruz. I do know that at least Cruz would have the advantage of already knowing how the government functions and he would have picked different people other than Priebus and Bannon, etc., and certainly his children wouldn't be occupying the West Wing. Also Cruz wouldn't have insulted everybody and his brother along the way creating more enemies then when he started. I believe he would have worked with the Freedom caucus instead of slamming them as Trump has done. I also believe that Cruz rather than threatening people and announcing his next steps to draw attention; he would have just gone ahead and done it. I don't believe Cruz would spend time tweeting back and forth; Cruz didn't create a three ring circus, Trump has. Trump's biggest downfall is his narcissistic personality and his loud mouth and the DEMS and the MSM have preyed on this since he began his political journey.
No it isn't. 'Most Conservatives' have not been Republican for nigh on a decade now.Sad, but true. I have been either on the fringe or just not there since W's first run, haven't contributed except to the occasional individual candidate and have just voted for the best I can find.
'Most Conservatives' are Independent.
And there hasn't been a Conservative goal met in THIRTY YEARS.
Not a single conservative principle has gained ground.
And that is entirely at the feet of the Republican party <SPIT>
I thought Ted Cruz endorsed Romney but now we heard how bad the GOP were to nominate him.At least he didn't donate to Hillary.
Folks, you can't make this stuff up.
At least he didn't donate to Hillary.
Best to replace the Mark Levin/Ted Cruz/Glen Beck smear machine, this is the toxic influence, as they supposedly think they represent conservatism per the deeds of Senator Do-Nothing. They set the rules, they should be challenged.
At least he didn't donate to Hillary.
No it isn't. 'Most Conservatives' have not been Republican for nigh on a decade now.
'Most Conservatives' are Independent.
If you're a conservative but not a Republican then you're irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Only if you're a Republican do you have the means of translating conservative ideas into conservative policy. Sure, you'll have to put up with those nasty centrists and libertarians and Trumpsters who disturb the echo chamber you'd prefer, but that's the price of belonging to a coalition that can successfully obtain and wield political power.The old "Might makes right" argument?
Conservatives who aren't Republican make a little noise on the internet but otherwise contribute bupkis.
What is it, 29 governorships and counting? Control of the House and Senate? Yup, the Republican party is alive and well - thanks in part to the cretins who think "conservatives" need to reject the GOP. Who needs that negative energy anyway? Politics is a different game than venting on the internet.
The old "Might makes right" argument?
If it wins, but doesn't stand for what you believe, you don't.
Absolutely. Cruz has been in conflict with him shortly after he took office. McConnell asked him to join the GOP leadership as vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Cruz soon learned that the NRSC's intent was to support incumbents in the primaries and go against conservative challengers. He didn't resign, but he stopped asking donors to support the NRSC -- that didn't sit well with many, nor did it sit well with Mitch. Cruz also had a run in with him over TPP and took to the Senate floor and called him out for the liar that he is.Case in point on the NRSC protecting its own -
Flake will have the backing of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and a score of outside groups that look to protect GOP incumbents, whether or not they have Trump’s support.http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,278015.msg1428905.html#msg1428905
Case in point on the NRSC protecting its own - http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,278015.msg1428905.html#msg1428905
I agree; the GOPe certainly has declared war on conservatism. The past several general election cycles have proven that. McCain - Romney - Trump? Seriously??
It's much more immediate than that my friend! The NRSC will pull out ALL the stops to try and prevent the election of Roy Moore to the Senate next month in Alabama!
I hope they succeed!
I find it more than mildly amusing the American people threw a great big turd in the middle of the DC punchbowl.
Proves that the American people still have the ultimate power.
It is the Joe Schmos like me, and you, who are holding this country together. Go to work everyday. Hoping that somehow things will get better. But still trying.
Which is more than the people in Washington.
Forming a new party would be easy. Tell Cruz, if he such a conservative, to drop the R and go with an I. People can encourage all their reps to do the same. The people want something different. Look at who they elected.
But that won't happen. All those azzholes in DC like it the way it is. They don't care that much to try and actually go with something different.
If you're a conservative but not a Republican then you're irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Only if you're a Republican do you have the means of translating conservative ideas into conservative policy. Sure, you'll have to put up with those nasty centrists and libertarians and Trumpsters who disturb the echo chamber you'd prefer, but that's the price of belonging to a coalition that can successfully obtain and wield political power.Some see history as such a little thing, they fail to understand and learn from it. The Whigs thought the same way as you - after all, they were part of a two party system that in a short time had 4 US Presidents - all in the span of 20 years.
Conservatives who aren't Republican make a little noise on the internet but otherwise contribute bupkis.
What is it, 29 governorships and counting? Control of the House and Senate? Yup, the Republican party is alive and well - thanks in part to the cretins who think "conservatives" need to reject the GOP. Who needs that negative energy anyway? Politics is a different game than venting on the internet.
QuoteI find it more than mildly amusing the American people threw a great big turd in the middle of the DC punchbowl.
@bigheadfred
I think it is highly appropriate. Who better qualified to deal with the cesspool that is DC?
It's much more immediate than that my friend! The NRSC will pull out ALL the stops to try and prevent the election of Roy Moore to the Senate next month in Alabama!I believe you are right.
And your claim to be a Conservative goes down in flames yet again.
Don't say it cannot be done - it can be done, no matter what the little brains of some say otherwise.
If you're a conservative but not a Republican then you're irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
Only if you're a Republican do you have the means of translating conservative ideas into conservative policy.
Sure, you'll have to put up with those nasty centrists and libertarians and Trumpsters who disturb the echo chamber you'd prefer, but that's the price of belonging to a coalition that can successfully obtain and wield political power.
Conservatives who aren't Republican make a little noise on the internet but otherwise contribute bupkis.
What is it, 29 governorships and counting?
Control of the House and Senate?
Yup, the Republican party is alive and well - thanks in part to the cretins who think "conservatives" need to reject the GOP. Who needs that negative energy anyway?
Politics is a different game than venting on the internet.
If you're a conservative but not a Republican then you're irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
And your claim to be a Conservative goes down in flames yet again.
If you're a conservative but not a Republican then you're irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
Only if you're a Republican do you have the means of translating conservative ideas into conservative policy.
but that's the price of belonging to a coalition that can successfully obtain and wield political power.
the Republican party is alive and well - thanks in part to the cretins who think "conservatives" need to reject the GOP. Who needs that negative energy anyway?
Don't think that you're more virtuous than others because you won't sully yourself with a party that includes others who may disagree with you from time to time, or who see the utility of pragmatism.
I support the incumbent, Sen. Strange. That means I'm not a conservative? *****rollingeyes*****You mean Luther Strange, the Attorney General of Alabama who dropped impeachment charges against Governor Bentley when the Governor nominated him as Senator to replace Sessions?
You mean Luther Strange, the Attorney General of Alabama who dropped impeachment charges against Governor Bentley when the Governor nominated him as Senator to replace Sessions?
Trump gains more social conservative issues victories; more than any other president on some issues. Apparently, this is not a balanced debate and that is the most that can be said. And certainly, Trump is more accomplished on conservative issues now than any of his competitors in 2016.
Trump defines some conservatism, the rest is whine and sour grapes.
Border security too; crossings down 47%; to deny these things is just to live on another planet. Foreign policy victories as well.
@bigheadfred
I think it is highly appropriate. Who better qualified to deal with the cesspool that is DC?
You mean Luther Strange, the Attorney General of Alabama who dropped impeachment charges against Governor Bentley when the Governor nominated him as Senator to replace Sessions?
No wonder it is called the Grand Old Party.
Someone with a clear set of conservatives beliefs and an ethical nature?
@Sanguine
You can remove the question mark IMHO!
That's a feature, not a bug.
I know what I believe in, SJ. My principles are as firm as yours are. Don't think that you're more virtuous than others because you won't sully yourself with a party that includes others who may disagree with you from time to time, or who see the utility of pragmatism.Nope, That is not what I disagree with.
I take it you don't get your news from CNN. Trump is a liberal who appeals to white supremacist.
Someone with a clear set of conservatives beliefs and an ethical nature?
Trump gains more social conservative issues victories; more than any other president on some issues. Apparently, this is not a balanced debate and that is the most that can be said. And certainly, Trump is more accomplished on conservative issues now than any of his competitors in 2016.It is nice that the invasion trains have quit bringing tens of thousands to our borders. Keep in mind that that decrease is down from a high that was inflated by the policies and likely collusion of the last administration.
Trump defines some conservatism, the rest is whine and sour grapes.
Border security too; crossings down 47%; to deny these things is just to live on another planet. Foreign policy victories as well.
It is nice that the invasion trains have quit bringing tens of thousands to our borders. Keep in mind that that decrease is down from a high that was inflated by the policies and likely collusion of the last administration.
@Sanguine
You are either on drugs or have been dropped on your head a hundred times too many if you think an ethical conservative has ANY chance of being elected to federal office at this time. Being ethical automatically disqualifies you for public office these days,and that goes double for federal office.
I take it you don't get your news from CNN. Trump is a liberal who appeals to white supremacist. Listen to the echo and get with the program. Tune in, turn on, drop out.Trump is one Republican. We're talking about replacing the GOPe that so many Trump supporters ranted about at length. Since most of the current office holders are GOPe and obstructing the very things President Trump said he'd do, you'd think Trump supporters would agree that changes need to be made, and if they won't change them in the GOP then maybe the Party should be replaced.
It can't be done.There you go with little brains.
There you go with little brains.
Of course it can be done.
What you should have said it may not be done. That is accurate.
Why can't all these supposed members merely change their party affiliation to something else?
Get the Freedom Caucus, for example, and other like minded people, have them group up, change their affiliation to the same thing. Say B, F, or D. And bod a bing, new party. Get Ted to head it up. They can face the wrath or praise of their constituency later.
Money. They lose access to the honey pot and, I would imagine none are willing to risk their seat. Maybe they haven't figured out that the millions of Conservatives who are going to sit home next year is a group ripe and ready to be led into a new paradigm of political opportunity.
Why can't all these supposed members merely change their party affiliation to something else?
Get the Freedom Caucus, for example, and other like minded people, have them group up, change their affiliation to the same thing. Say B, F, or D. And bod a bing, new party. Get Ted to head it up. They can face the wrath or praise of their constituency later.
That's certainly part of it. In addition, qualifying for ballots is hundreds of times more difficult without the big Party stamp (and by "big" I mean at least as big as the Green Party).
Money. They lose access to the honey pot and, I would imagine none are willing to risk their seat. Maybe they haven't figured out that the millions of Conservatives who are going to sit home next year is a group ripe and ready to be led into a new paradigm of political opportunity.
If conservatives can't leave the GOP because they would lose access to the honey pot and the Rats would become the majority party the only alternative is to force the Pubs to institute the same party discipline that the Rats exercise. The only way to do this is to punish the Pubs for failing to keep their promises. How do we do that? We sit out the elections if conservatives aren't successful in the primaries.
IOW, it's time to treat the Pubs like the liars and cheats they are, shun them.
I think the Pubs can weather the storm for a couple elections because the Rats are insane, but eventually it will catch up to them and they will be the minority party. At this point I don't really care. What's the point in electing someone who won't represent you.
It's been a surprise to me that it is Pres. Trump who has been trying to keep his promises and the Pub party that won't support the platform they ran on.
It is nearly impossible to get your name on the ballot in Texas as an independent! And that is not by accident!
Why can't all these supposed members merely change their party affiliation to something else?
Get the Freedom Caucus, for example, and other like minded people, have them group up, change their affiliation to the same thing. Say B, F, or D. And bod a bing, new party. Get Ted to head it up. They can face the wrath or praise of their constituency later.
But what does that get you? You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything. And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two. How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?
But what does that get you? You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything. And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two. How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?
But what does that get you? You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything. And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two. How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?
But what does that get you? You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything. And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two. How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?
Now after 600 posts, virtually NO discussion about ADMITTING TO THE PISS POOR JOB, of convincing Voters, of the need for MORE CONSERVATIVE POLICIES AND OFFICE HOLDERS.
key words: CONVINCING, VOTERS
What is the point, of a new vessel to house the same old shortcomings? A smaller vessel, with less money and fewer members?
Common sense is not common any more. Too many "true conservatives" are logic and math challenged.
But what does that get you? You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything. And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two. How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?
Now after 600 posts, virtually NO discussion about ADMITTING TO THE PISS POOR JOB, of convincing Voters, of the need for MORE CONSERVATIVE POLICIES AND OFFICE HOLDERS.
key words: CONVINCING, VOTERS
What is the point, of a new vessel to house the same old shortcomings? A smaller vessel, with less money and fewer members?
Common sense is not common any more. Too many "true conservatives" are logic and math challenged.
The conservative wing is going to have to raise huge money to support both new and existing candidates, and it's going to have to network with conservative PACS to bolster those numbers.
That done, you have the ability to create a wing of the party with clout to affect legislation. That's where it needs to start.
But what does that get you? You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything. And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two. How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?
You have that small group. I think it could be a significant group by the time some of those people are up for reelection. If a senator has 3,4, or 5 years, even 2, to work on it, things can change.
I'm not the type of person you can tell it can't be done. It can be done. And a lot faster than people who think otherwise believe.
Probably.
Perhaps(?) equally important would be finding ways to use the money they raise more effectively.
I don't know how much the POTUS candidates spent this time around. Last time I was hearing near a billion each, so let's call it $630 million. That's $10 per vote. But not really. Most people are going to vote on party, so the real question, IMO, is how much the candidates spent for every voter that they were able to convince to vote for them. Now that $/vote number is much larger.
And I happen to think most of that is wasted anyway. How many times per day do you have to see the same ad? How many fliers do we throw away with the rest of the junk mail? I'm not by any means an expert here -- but then if I was people would be paying me for my opinion, which just might be to keep giving me more money to advise you on spending what's left, kind of like your broker, I don't care if you buy or sell, just do something so I get a commission.
I think Trump is probably a case in point. Between twitter and manipulating the media, I bet he ran a pretty darn tight campaign (except when paying himself and family). President Twitter? I wouldn't be surprised if that takes off once the history books are written.
It is nearly impossible to get your name on the ballot in Texas as an independent! And that is not by accident!@libertybele
@libertybele
Texas had their voter ID law struck down again. Argue that the restrictions against independents getting on the ballot is, in essence, the same thing. Voters are being discriminated against because the person they want to vote for isn't, or wasn't, allowed on the ballot.
@libertybele
Texas had their voter ID law struck down again. Argue that the restrictions against independents getting on the ballot is, in essence, the same thing. Voters are being discriminated against because the person they want to vote for isn't, or wasn't, allowed on the ballot.
Now after 600 posts, virtually NO discussion about ADMITTING TO THE PISS POOR JOB, of convincing Voters, of the need for MORE CONSERVATIVE POLICIES AND OFFICE HOLDERS.
key words: CONVINCING, VOTERS
What is the point, of a new vessel to house the same old shortcomings? A smaller vessel, with less money and fewer members?
Common sense is not common any more. Too many "true conservatives" are logic and math challenged.
What is the point, of a new vessel to house the same old shortcomings? A smaller vessel, with less money and fewer members?
Common sense is not common any more. Too many "true conservatives" are logic and math challenged.
The rogue judge who struk down the voter id law will get her wings clipped big time on appeal. The ballot access matter is something entirely different and needs to be challenged in court.
@truth_seeker
I don't understand it either. The problem isn't the label. The problem is a lack of enough conservative-minded voters to win primary elections, then win the general elections. Collins, Murkowski, and the rest of the moderates win because there aren't enough conservatives in their states to knock them out in the primary. And if there aren't enough conservatives to win even the GOP primary, how can there possibly be enough to beat both the D's and the R's in a general election?
People, at this point, don't seem to have a viable alternative to either a D or an R. I'm suggesting there is a way. Get some of the big league people already in DC on board. Give US an alternative. Give us a choice. I see a uniparty now. And they don't do anything.
So what harm can it do to have a different voting block?
But unless you consider all Republican politicians as indistinguishable from each other (Ted Cruz = Susan Collins), voters do have a real choice in the primaries. Putting a different letter after their name doesn't change the choice.
Because by forming that different voting block, you're automatically conceding all the votes that are to the left of your candidate. Conservatives generally win elections when 1) the conservatives are a majority in their state GOP, and 2) the overall GOP (not just conservatives) is a majority in in that state. But that is not the same as saying conservatives are a majority in the overall electorate. By forming a third party, you're guaranteed to be losing some votes to the Republicans, that might otherwise go to the conservative who is now running as a third party. And that is only going to make it that hard to beat out the Democrat, who won't be worried about vote splitting to his/her left.
To put it differently...wouldn't we all have been thrilled if Bernie had decided to run as a third party candidate, and siphoned off votes from Hillary on the left? I doubt we'd have been sweating out the returns on November 8 -- we'd have been celebrating by noon. That's the flip side of what you're advocating.
I don't understand it either. The problem isn't the label. The problem is a lack of enough conservative-minded voters to win primary elections, then win the general elections.
I can see how there have to be restrictions on ballot access to keep a Brazilian people being on the ballot.
Are write-ins allowed?
@truth_seeker
I don't understand it either. The problem isn't the label. The problem is a lack of enough conservative-minded voters to win primary elections, then win the general elections. Collins, Murkowski, and the rest of the moderates win because there aren't enough conservatives in their states to knock them out in the primary. And if there aren't enough conservatives to win even the GOP primary, how can there possibly be enough to beat both the D's and the R's in a general election?
@Maj. Bill Martin
That ain't right. Every man-jack of em preach conservatism from the stump.
What it is is gullible voters swayed by populism and believing in promises without any guarantee.
I can see how there have to be restrictions on ballot access to keep a Brazilian people being on the ballot.
Are write-ins allowed?
It's tough to be a conservative in today's world. Advocating the reform of entitlement programs is a tougher sell than handing out free stuff and paying for it with OPM. Advocating free trade and self reliance is a tougher sell than blaming one's lack of a job on the Chinese or the Mexicans.
The sea-change in perspective in the last fifty years has hurt conservatism. We used to be a melting pot, now we're a mosaic. We used to check our cultural identities at the door in the desire to become un-hyphenated Americans. Now even some conservatives have been seduced by the allure of identity politics. Social conservatives whine about prejudice and persecution, and now it's getting so ridiculous that some are advancing the absurd premise of "white nationalism".
I understand the self-satisfaction of ideological purity. But the American experiment is about community sown and cultivated from the secular values of hard work, self-reliance, tolerance, opportunity and capitalism. For me, those values are relentlessly promoted and best advanced by the grand center-right coalition represented by the Republican Party. I have no use for those who want to take their marbles and play in the political corner.
It's tough to be a conservative in today's world. Advocating the reform of entitlement programs is a tougher sell than handing out free stuff and paying for it with OPM. Advocating free trade and self reliance is a tougher sell than blaming one's lack of a job on the Chinese or the Mexicans.What is the point of having laws if we aren't going to uphold them? Ideological purity as you demean it is nothing but calling for the Government to conform to its own rules. Anything less is unacceptable, The sooner people who are willing to dispense with the law of the land realize that is the path to anarchy, the better.
The sea-change in perspective in the last fifty years has hurt conservatism. We used to be a melting pot, now we're a mosaic. We used to check our cultural identities at the door in the desire to become un-hyphenated Americans. Now even some conservatives have been seduced by the allure of identity politics. Social conservatives whine about prejudice and persecution, and now it's getting so ridiculous that some are advancing the absurd premise of "white nationalism".
I understand the self-satisfaction of ideological purity. But the American experiment is about community sown and cultivated from the secular values of hard work, self-reliance, tolerance, opportunity and capitalism. For me, those values are relentlessly promoted and best advanced by the grand center-right coalition represented by the Republican Party. I have no use for those who want to take their marbles and play in the political corner.
It's tough to be a conservative in today's world.
The sea-change in perspective in the last fifty years has hurt conservatism.
I understand the self-satisfaction of ideological purity.
But the American experiment is about community sown and cultivated from the secular values of hard work, self-reliance, tolerance, opportunity and capitalism. For me, those values are relentlessly promoted and best advanced by the grand center-right coalition represented by the Republican Party.
I have no use for those who want to take their marbles and play in the political corner.
No, it's not. It's a way of life, and it's the truth.
No, again, not true. If that were so, Republicans would be selling themselves as progressive. They are not. They sell themselves as far right as they can to get into office. It's a damnable lie, of course, for most of them... But that's what they do.
There is no self-satisfaction, so you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't create the principles I adhere to - I merely follow them because they are true. It is a way-of-life, in the end, A simple, self-reliant, and humble way. There is no self-satisfaction in adhering to truth. But there is confidence, and faith, and peace.
Absolutely incorrect. Less the Goldwater wing, the Republican party stands for nothing more than 3rd-way socialism, at best, according to their actions as a party.The paucity of principled thought, and the dichotomies raised therein, are absolutely insurmountable. One cannot be pro-capitalism and pro big-government at the same time. They are diametrically opposed and do not exist in the same space.
Piss on politics. I couldn't care less for your spineless coalitions, so bent upon ceding truth to falsity. Nothing is new under the sun. The path y'all are on is well worn, and predictable in it's end. You go ahead. Join the masses and beat your damn drum, right down into the valley of destruction. It's gonna be a partay!
Me, I will stay on the rocky way, the way less traveled, and mourn the destruction of what could have been from far away.
The only thing that baffles me is your insistence that I join you in tearing down all that I love. It isn't going to happen. I know where your road goes.
I think that's what the moderates and those who dislike social conservatives fail to understand. Those of us who are social conservative/religious do not see politics as the ultimate end. We answer to a higher power and hold to ultimate truth. For us the end game is not to win the next election, it is to stand firm and hear the "well done" when we finally stand in front of our maker. All else is a distant second.
The fact that we have the government we have today and that it is of our on choosing is a testament to how far we have fallen from the principles of our founding!
I got caught up in the politics game for a very long time thinking that I, and other like minded individuals, could change the Republican party from within. That worked here in Texas to some extent but on the national level it has been a complete and utter failure and I'm done with it!
Liberty has responsibilities. Freedom has consequences.
@txradioguy
@Maj. Bill Martin@roamer_1
That ain't right. Every man-jack of em preach conservatism from the stump.
What it is is gullible voters swayed by populism and believing in promises without any guarantee.
Never truer words @Bigun .
Yep. me too. I am rejiggering my own efforts... I don't know if I will be moving money for the Constitution Party in the cause of Right2Life, or if I will gather than money for legal or charitable work directly in that cause, or if I will just stop altogether and let others worry about it.
But I am all the way done with Republicans. I will support them individually if they happen to be Conservative, but the party itself, and it's platform, is a damn lie. Not a penny one.
@Mom MD
Absolutely right! But one can leave the Father aside (as it were), and simply study history and do the math.That the math coincides with the Father's way should not surprise anyone, but the math is the math.
People are better off with little government. Always. All it requires is a good and moral, self-reliant people. And those people, without governance, is where prosperity lives... Where justice abounds. Where there is true kindness, tolerance, and charity.
Liberty has responsibilities. Freedom has consequences.
@txradioguy
@roamer_1
The problem is the lack of conservative voters, not the label under which candidates run.
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. ~ Ronald Reagan
The simple answer in this complex world for Conservatives is there is no one in the positions of real power within the GOP that represent them. So because they have standards and because they stick to their values...they stay home.
IMHO the Conservative voters are still out there...they are just choosing to vote with their feet and stay home.
The simple answer in this complex world for Conservatives is there is no one in the positions of real power within the GOP that represent them. So because they have standards and because they stick to their values...they stay home.
I think that's what the moderates and those who dislike social conservatives fail to understand. Those of us who are social conservative/religious do not see politics as the ultimate end. We answer to a higher power and hold to ultimate truth. For us the end game is not to win the next election, it is to stand firm and hear the "well done" when we finally stand in front of our maker. All else is a distant second.
@roamer_1
@txradioguy
@Mom MD
Absolutely right! But one can leave the Father aside (as it were), and simply study history and do the math.That the math coincides with the Father's way should not surprise anyone, but the math is the math.
People are better off with little government. Always. All it requires is a good and moral, self-reliant people. And those people, without governance, is where prosperity lives... Where justice abounds. Where there is true kindness, tolerance, and charity.
Liberty has responsibilities. Freedom has consequences.
@txradioguy
Too many people want all the perks of Liberty and freedom without shouldering the responsibilities that come with it nor are they willing to accept the consequences. Liberals have created a society in which it's never a person's fault for their own actions....there's always someone else to blame.
If they aren't willing to vote in the primaries to nominate more conservatives, why would they vote for a third party? If everyone just lies to them, it changing the label won't change that.
Then the people to blame are those looking right back at them in the mirror. If you're not going to vote in the primaries to move the party to the right, then don't complain when it moves left.
If they aren't willing to vote in the primaries to nominate more conservatives, why would they vote for a third party? If everyone just lies to them, it changing the label won't change that.
Then the people to blame are those looking right back at them in the mirror. If you're not going to vote in the primaries to move the party to the right, then don't complain when it moves left.
@txradioguy
You missed the gist of that statement. Think of it more as Liberty and Freedom not being the same thing.
Our fathers fought and died, and laid their bodies low to give us a chance at liberty. Too many confuse that liberty with libertine (freedom).
In the end, we are not a free people. In the words of Bob Dylan, waxing prophetic, 'You've Got to Serve Somebody (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtIEYjNZgiU)".
Liberty, it turns out, is found in service - I would submit that it is only found in service to the Father, and the precepts he laid down in law - The very precepts our beloved country was founded upon... But in service, nonetheless.
Thus "Liberty has responsibilities,"
Freedom is a whole nuther thing. You are free to partake of the things outside of that service, and many do - Living a life of debauchery, addiction, or winding up doing time...
Thus, "Freedom has consequences".
I think it a comparative worthy of note.
To the contrary, there are a ton of moderate Republicans that conservatives have complained about for years, and we have known they weren't conservative. Yet, when real conservatives run against them in the primary, they still lose. Even after voters know how they voted.
And if the issue is that you think they keep "fooling" gullible GOP voters year after year, and they keep believing that stuff, then why would those kind of gullible voters move to a new party? They'll just stay with the GOP and continue to believe the same thing.
The problem is the lack of conservative voters, not the label under which candidates run.
By far and away, this country is Conservative.
@roamer_1
I was a voting member of the RNC for more than 25 years. Got a phone call from the current director the other day. Before it was over I'm sure he was wishing he hadn't called because my final words to him were "when the party actually moves some of the things we have been promising for 40 years call me! Until then don't bother!
Individual liberty and personal responsibility are inextricably linked together! You simply cannot have one without accepting the other!
Always been that way and always will be that way!
The simple answer in this complex world for Conservatives is there is no one in the positions of real power within the GOP that represent them. So because they have standards and because they stick to their values...they stay home.
TRUE.
Give them someone to vote *for* and they will come a-running.
It's always been that way... 'waking the Conservative Juggernaut' is how it used to be termed... Who might harness the three legs of the Conservative stool and tie them together... Because it was common knowledge that anyone who could would be unstoppable.
Upon what do you base that belief? I see no evidence of that.
We just had one of the most wide-open, highly-publicized GOP primaries in history. Record-setting participation. And among the candidates was Ted Cruz, who I think most would concede was clearly the most conservative potential nominee we had in a really long time. And he was going up against a non-conservative populist in Trump.
If there was one election where true, die-hard conservatives should have come out of the woodwork to vote, it should have been this one. So if this country is "far and away" conservative, why didn't all those conservatives result in Ted waltzing to the nomination? All those conservatives should have won him the nomination in a landslide.
@roamer_1
They had the chance to vote *for* Ted Cruz.
They didn't.
And you think it's any different for the "moderates and those who dislike social conservatives"? You're not the only ones with principles, not the only ones who seek to live a good and contributive life. And, for cryin' out loud, you're not the only ones who believes in God!
One of my pet peeves with social conservatives is that when you scratch 'em they ooze self-righteousness and forget that Christ taught, above all, the virtue of humility.
Really? When was that? At the Convention perhaps?
That's what INVAR wants - he seeks to be holier than thou. He's on a self-styled mission from God, and in that context wants to destroy the GOP without a care in the world for the real-life consequences. His motivation's the most selfish of all - he's somehow convinced himself that purity of essence will keep him from becoming worm food.
@truth_seeker
I don't understand it either. The problem isn't the label. The problem is a lack of enough conservative-minded voters to win primary elections, then win the general elections. Collins, Murkowski, and the rest of the moderates win because there aren't enough conservatives in their states to knock them out in the primary. And if there aren't enough conservatives to win even the GOP primary, how can there possibly be enough to beat both the D's and the R's in a general election?
There were a lot of Primaries, and Trump got more votes than Cruz IIRC. It was very frustrating because there were a lot of people who said they preferred Cruz but were voting Trump because they didn't think Cruz could beat Clinton. I really detested that reasoning, because these people were allowing themselves to be tricked by phony polls.
Upon what do you base that belief? I see no evidence of that.
We just had one of the most wide-open, highly-publicized GOP primaries in history. Record-setting participation. And among the candidates was Ted Cruz, who I think most would concede was clearly the most conservative potential nominee we had in a really long time. And he was going up against a non-conservative populist in Trump.
If there was one election where true, die-hard conservatives should have come out of the woodwork to vote, it should have been this one. So if this country is "far and away" conservative, why didn't all those conservatives result in Ted waltzing to the nomination? All those conservatives should have won him the nomination in a landslide.
@roamer_1
QuoteThose of us who are social conservative/religious
I am a Constitutional Conservative,and take pride in likely being one of the least religious people you are ever likely to meet because the TRUTH is that organized religion is about enslaving people,not freeing them. The only upside is that is THIS country no one is required by law to be a "follower" to get a job,buy property,etc,etc,etc. We have choices,and one of the biggest freedoms we have is the freedom FROM religion. That was a VERY big deal when the Bill of Rights was being debated,but got watered down afterwards as the various religious cults gained political power,and the end result was and is insane laws like Sunday Blue Laws,laws against non-married adults of different genders co-habituating,etc,etc,etc.
The Founding Fathers were all from Europe,and knew well the dangers of organized religion mating with government.Quotedo not see politics as the ultimate end.
Politics is nothing more than a tool. Like any other tool,it should work for US,the owners,not have US work for the employees we "hire".
QuoteWe answer to a higher power and hold to ultimate truth.
What's this "We" stuff? You pregnant?QuoteFor us the end game is not to win the next election, it is to stand firm and hear the "well done" when we finally stand in front of our maker.
Who is keeping you from voting for your Gawd? BTW,which Gawd are you voting for? The Catholic God,the Protestant God,the Hindu God,the Communist God (Marx),the Buddist God,the Jewish God,etc,etc,etc?
Just make sure when you fill out your write in ballot that you specify WHICH "God" you are voting for because there are so many of them.QuoteAll else is a distant second.
Ahhh,you are on a mission to make your God our President!
I prefer to live free.
@roamer_1
@txradioguy
They had the chance to vote *for* Ted Cruz.
They didn't.
Record setting? LOL! Trump won with 26% of the population. He barely beat the most beatable candidate in history, and lost in the popular vote. More than half the country stayed home.
IMHO the Conservative voters are still out there...they are just choosing to vote with their feet and stay home. They are tired of the false prophets claiming to be Conservative...and being told that voting for the almost Liberal Republican is the only way to win. They get sick of being told their core beliefs are antiquated and bigoted and that to "move the party forward" we have to be more like Democrats in order to make people like us.
The simple answer in this complex world for Conservatives is there is no one in the positions of real power within the GOP that represent them. So because they have standards and because they stick to their values...they stay home.
There were a lot of Primaries, and Trump got more votes than Cruz IIRC. It was very frustrating because there were a lot of people who said they preferred Cruz but were voting Trump because they didn't think Cruz could beat Clinton. I really detested that reasoning, because these people were allowing themselves to be tricked by phony polls.
"Build it (a party with candiates worth voting for) and they will come!"
If they aren't willing to vote in the primaries to nominate more conservatives, why would they vote for a third party? If everyone just lies to them, it changing the label won't change that.
If memory serves, the RNC changed the rules so a PLURALITY would win the nomination rather than a candidate winning a solid majority.
If your principles are solidly Conservative, staying in the Republican Party is a death knell for them.
There was lying about Ted Cruz? Okay. But there was also lying about Donald Trump (coming at him at break neck speed from all corners of the political universe) – yet Trump won the primary.
Were some lies better than others? Or, did voters look past the lies and vote their consciences?
They had the chance to vote *for* Ted Cruz.
They didn't.
@Maj. Bill Martin
It takes a LOT of money to run in local and state primaries,and if you aren't one of the Cult Approved Likely Suspects that "The Party" knows they can count on to carry their water,you ain't getting a dime. What you WILL get is a VERY well-financed opposition working against you to try to bury your campaign in bankruptcy as you try to spend to keep up.
The only reason Trump was able to run and win was because his wealth and ego had made him well-known all over the country,and he had the bucks to promote himself until the cash started coming in.
If you ain't a member of The Borg,the Borg ain't going to do anything but squash you like a bug on a windshield.
@Maj. Bill Martin @truth_seeker@sneakypete @Maj. Bill Martin
Is the problem a lack of conservative voters,or a lack of conservative candidates to motivate the voters to go to the polls?
"Build it (a party with candiates worth voting for) and they will come!"
Just can't leave a decent civilized conversation about politics alone can you?
At the very least you could contribute instead of coming in and subtly trying to pick a fight.
I dunno...in a country with 130 million or so voters, that is supposedly "far and away" conservative, Ted pulled a grand total of 7.8 million votes.
Polls show that roughly 40% of the country self-identifies as "conservative". But that includes all those people with a much different definition of "conservative" than we might have -- Jeb Bush, John Kasich, etc. Just look at what happened with TOS and this place. Clearly, for self-described conservatives, we had very different visions of what that actually meant.
The number of people we might consider actual conservatives is probably half that 40%. Maybe less.
Someone said Trump lied about Cruz. Is that the example of 'civilized conversation about politics' to which you are referring?
Someone said Trump lied about Cruz. Is that the example of 'civilized conversation about politics' to which you are referring?
It was an extremely diluted field this time around. 16 candidates. Had there been only two or three I believe his numbers would have been bigger. But the RNC purposely IMO allowed there to be that many candidates to dilute the effect of a true Reagan style Conservative being in the field.
See the dirty little secret is that it wasn't just the DNC that doesn't want to see someone in the mold of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater take the Presidency ever again...it's the RNC as well. When Reagan won he had to win against his own party too...in an era way before Fox News.
Lets remember the term "Voodoo Economics" wasn't coined by the Dems...that's what Poppy Bush called Reagan's economic plan in the 1980 election during one of the debates.
True, but Cruz had a chance at the Convention until the Priebus/Trump wing finagled him out.
Oh, the RNC hated a conservative Ted Cruz that wouldn't fall in line with Republican "leadership", and I believe they thought that Trump would never win. They would have rather Hillary win than a guy they hated, so arranged for the guy they thought wouldn't win to go up against her.
I just think we need to stop feeding ourselves feel-good myths about this supposed "conservative majority". The evidence to support it's existence simply does not exist. If we want it to exist, we've got a lot of people to persuade.
Oh, the RNC hated a conservative Ted Cruz that wouldn't fall in line with Republican "leadership", and I believe they thought that Trump would never win. They would have rather Hillary win than a guy they hated, so arranged for the guy they thought wouldn't win to go up against her.
I just think we need to stop feeding ourselves feel-good myths about this supposed "conservative majority". The evidence to support it's existence simply does not exist. If we want it to exist, we've got a lot of people to persuade.
And that's why a couple of them that shouldn't have been around past the first state primary hung on until the bitter end as well.
It was an extremely diluted field this time around. 16 candidates. Had there been only two or three I believe his numbers would have been bigger.
See the dirty little secret is that it wasn't just the DNC that doesn't want to see someone in the mold of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater take the Presidency ever again...it's the RNC as well. When Reagan won he had to win against his own party too...in an era way before Fox News. Lets remember the term "Voodoo Economics" wasn't coined by the Dems...that's what Poppy Bush called Reagan's economic plan in the 1980 election during one of the debates.
That's as reasonable a theory as any other, Roos. It's true Trump's win surprised the Hell out of everyone (but the voters, that is. I wasn't surprised, you?).
Ted Cruz had plenty of publicity. People -- certainly at least the "true conservatives" that supposedly are far and away the majority -- knew the differences between Cruz and Trump. And he still couldn't even get 8 million votes.
I just think we need to stop feeding ourselves feel-good myths about this supposed "conservative majority". The evidence to support it's existence simply does not exist. If we want it to exist, we've got a lot of people to persuade.
Worth repeating, And remembering.
But even when it was whittled down to only a few candidates, Cruz still didn't pull anything close to the number of voters he should have if conservatives are "far and away" the majority. The votes simply don't match the claim. It's not even close.
No argument there, but a lot of the people doing that are part of that 40% of self-identified conservatives.
BS. @Jazzhead The "average Republican voter" was Pissed at eight years of a President mocking them at every turn and crapping on everything they held dear. All they wanted was to "win" to get that scum put of the White House. They didn't care who it was, so they voted for the one they thought most likely to beat Hillary.
BS @Jazzhead. The "average Republican voter" was Pissed at eight years of a President mocking them at every turn and crapping on everything they held dear. All they wanted was to "win" to get that scum out of the White House. They didn't care who it was, so they voted for the one they thought most likely to beat Hillary.
An astute student of politics, should therefore look at what led to Trump's win. What did he do, and how did he do it?
BS @Jazzhead. The "average Republican voter" was Pissed at eight years of a President mocking them at every turn and crapping on everything they held dear. All they wanted was to "win" to get that scum out of the White House. They didn't care who it was, so they voted for the one they thought most likely to beat Hillary.
He lied through his teeth and unfairly disparaged his competition through slander and libel.
If you think that sort of thing is 'winning', that's another reason to walk away.
He lied through his teeth and unfairly disparaged his competition through slander and libel.
If you think that sort of thing is 'winning', that's another reason to walk away.
That's your opinion. His supporters didn't vote for a "liar", they voted for someone who spoke to their concerns.
If Trump at this point wants to find success, he'll do what Bill Clinton did - triangulate between liberals and conservatives.
That's your opinion. His supporters didn't vote for a "liar", they voted for someone who spoke to their concerns.
If Trump at this point wants to find success, he'll do what Bill Clinton did - triangulate between liberals and conservatives.
@roamer_1 and lets not forget the implied threats of violence from his supporters if he didn't win the primaries or didn't get the nomination at the convention.
My post was addressing the motivation of the "average voter", not the "average Republican voter" - that is, the folks who (in some cases) voted twice for Obama and then switched to a populist - NOT a conservative.
The "average Republican voter" likely did vote for Trump - with nose clenched - simply because he "wasn't Hillary". But that just explains why the base "came home" on election day. The base didn't decide this election - it was voters - some of whom may not have voted at all in recent elections - who were drawn to a candidate who spoke to their concerns about lost jobs and rampant globalism.
You do realize don't you that Slick Willie's "triangulation" was just a myth. After the '94 mid terms he had no choice but to give concessions to the Republicans on major policy issues otherwise he'd never gotten anything passed.
I think that's been @Jazzhead's premise all along: We need to give up on what's important to us, or we won't get even what's unimportant.
But even when it was whittled down to only a few candidates, Cruz still didn't pull anything close to the number of voters he should have if conservatives are "far and away" the majority. The votes simply don't match the claim. It's not even close.
[/quote
There is a bit of a fallacy in that, imo. I simply don't like Cruz. I wouldn't have voted for him if he had been the candidate for POTUS. So, does that mean I am not a true conservative, or you didn't factor people like me into your equation?
Sorry...my standards and values aren't fluid like that.
I think that's been @Jazzhead's premise all along: We need to give up on what's important to us, or we won't get even what's unimportant.
Most of us are like you on that TRG, or we'd be at a more principle-fluid forum like TOS.I'd not get in a pissing war with the TOS, I saw something here the other day that would get an automatic zotting over at TOS. I wouldn't be on a high horse.
If Cruz had a complaint, then he could have sued, taken to court. Where are these people who threatened him? No where, he ran the dirtiest campaign in decades per his competitors like Carson and Rubio.
Conservatism is however the wind blows.
If Cruz had a complaint, then he could have sued, taken to court. Where are these people who threatened him? No where, he ran the dirtiest campaign in decades per his competitors like Carson and Rubio.
Conservatism is however the wind blows.
Usually @TomSea when I'm stoned your comments make more sense, not this time.
Trump is Christ-centered, he had Rev. Graham on the stage with him in Arizona, I will take that over whoever is calling him names now.
Trump, law enforcement supports him, Christians like Graham and James Dobson.
Cruz is just an unprincipled cry-baby, whose to believe anyone threatened him or his delegates.
Cruz ran the sleaziest dirtiest campaign in decades. Now, his supporters are out using profanity, a reflection on them and Cruz.
I voted for Bush 2 times for President, no matter how much I defend him, he abandoned Christians in Iraq, Trump has been thanked by Christians in the ME for what he's done, he has stood up against tyrannical North Korea who are the way they are because they see if they have nukes, they won't be taken out like Saddam was by Bush or Qaddafi by Obama.
Usually @TomSea when I'm stoned your comments make more sense, not this time.
That's your opinion. His supporters didn't vote for a "liar", they voted for someone who spoke to their concerns.
If Trump at this point wants to find success, he'll do what Bill Clinton did - triangulate between liberals and conservatives.
If Cruz had a complaint, then he could have sued, taken to court. Where are these people who threatened him? No where, he ran the dirtiest campaign in decades per his competitors like Carson and Rubio.
Conservatism is however the wind blows.
ANY party unwilling to abide by it's own rules is a party I want nothing to do with!
Damn, @Emjay, did they change up your Medicine, again?
I'm almost ready to Love you even more.
What I'm saying is that Trump has no particular loyalty to conservatives. He was willing to sign anything the Congress put on his desk, but the inability of the GOP coalition to unite on legislation will force him to triangulate. The WSJ this morning suggested that Republicans start treating Trump as if he were a political independent. Trump wants victories, and the time is fast approaching when he will lose patience with the GOP to provide them.
I don't suggest for a moment that conservatives "give up on what's important", but rather to realize that politics is the art of the possible. There is no conservative majority, there is no conservative mandate. Center-right legislation that can be sent to the President's desk is what is needed. Incremental progress is what is possible. That requires compromise in the service of getting what's important - and that includes creating a record of accomplishment to run on in 2018. Like the Rolling Stones sang - you can't always get what you want, so try to get what you need.
Usually @TomSea when I'm stoned your comments make more sense, not this time.
Unfortunately, few people around here want to make sense or accept reality and try to deal with it.
They either want pie in the sky perfect (but impossible) third party or they just use this forum as an outlet for voicing doom and gloom. The family probably doesn't want to hear it anymore, so they come here and annoy us.
How could you love me more???
@Jazzhead You make so much sense ... and I almost totally agree with you.
Unfortunately, few people around here want to make sense or accept reality and try to deal with it.
They either want pie in the sky perfect (but impossible) third party or they just use this forum as an outlet for voicing doom and gloom. The family probably doesn't want to hear it anymore, so they come here and annoy us.
Incremental progress is what is possible.
That requires compromise in the service of getting what's important
@Jazzhead You make so much sense ... and I almost totally agree with you.
Unfortunately, few people around here want to make sense or accept reality and try to deal with it.
They either want pie in the sky perfect (but impossible) third party or they just use this forum as an outlet for voicing doom and gloom. The family probably doesn't want to hear it anymore, so they come here and annoy us.
The trouble starts where it usually does in discussions like this one: "What's Important?" There are some folks who consider abortion to be extremely important, there are other who call themselves "conservatives" who don't think it's any more important than the eventual alignment of a new freeway from Phoenix to Las Vegas. If you think that's a really important issue (I honestly don't know where you are on this subject), ask Jazz what he thinks. If you are a really strong advocate of the Second Amendment, ask him about that. You'll see that it's very easy for him to sound "sensible" until you find out he's willing to throw something dear to your heart under the bus in the name of pragmatism.
/quote]
Look, I know how Jazz feels about abortion and he and I respectfully disagree, as I am as passionate about pro-life and abolishing abortion as anyone could be. So now you know my position on that, and, I might add, it is probably the only social issue that we would agree on.
I don't know how he feels about the second amendment but I am for the second amendment.
But at least Jazzhead is willing to look at reality and what we can actually do. How many people here can say that?
We will never totally agree on everything but Jazz has more sense than a lot of people.
I love you too when you talk that way! :lubyou:
I just hope you still love me after my Jazzhead discussion. I know @corbe won't. He is so dam fickle.
There is a bit of a fallacy in that, imo. I simply don't like Cruz. I wouldn't have voted for him if he had been the candidate for POTUS. So, does that mean I am not a true conservative, or you didn't factor people like me into your equation?
Please ... I beg you, do not start on Cruz again. You and @Right_in_Virginia are perhaps the most destructive people to the Trump cause when you tell vicious lies about Cruz just like Trump did for months.
I'm trying to like Trump. He certainly hasn't mentioned Cruz in a while and I think he's done some good things and tried to do more, hampered by the weeniest Senate ever.
But shut the heck up about Cruz or I'll tell you what I really think.
Did Not Post a Response under extreme duress.
Gee, @Emjay I have been one of your Strongest Supporters here, I enjoy your touch here so much, unique AND knowledgeable.
It broke my Heart last week when that episode unfolded.
I just tried to write it off as a 'woman thing' and move past it, but my heart still aches, cause Catherine's still gone.
Yeah, I managed to miss all that. But, I have noticed that Catherine is not here, and that makes me sad.
Me too. She came here via my lifeline in The Refugee Thread, before it was The Lounge. 8888crybaby
We were good friends at TOS for years and years....
@RoosGirl don't give me none of your LIP. I've been watching youtube Videos of how to SWIM, all afternoon, and I'm really Nervous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4sMSSm0x2A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4sMSSm0x2A)
Yeah, I managed to miss all that. But, I have noticed that Catherine is not here, and that makes me sad.
And then we get stuck with the bleep that caused her to leave. I'm not usually one to mince words and I sure as hell ain't going to mince words about that.
You know @corbe it gets to a point sometimes where certain people need to be told to STFU, and I think we are well past that point. You can go back to learning how to swim if you don't have the stomach for it and I won't think any less of you, but I'm tired of the BS.
Gee, @Emjay I have been one of your Strongest Supporters here, I enjoy your touch here so much, unique AND knowledgeable.
It broke my Heart last week when that episode unfolded.
I just tried to write it off as a 'woman thing' and move past it, but my heart still aches, cause Catherine's still gone.
Oh, she's been here since she decided to totally diss me. Just not as often.
Oh, she's been here since she decided to totally diss me. Just not as often.
Your comment regarding this is not needed nor wanted.
Gee, @Emjay I have been one of your Strongest Supporters here, I enjoy your touch here so much, unique AND knowledgeable.
It broke my Heart last week when that episode unfolded.
I just tried to write it off as a 'woman thing' and move past it, but my heart still aches, cause Catherine's still gone.
You know @corbe it gets to a point sometimes where certain people need to be told to STFU, and I think we are well past that point. You can go back to learning how to swim if you don't have the stomach for it and I won't think any less of you, but I'm tired of the BS.
Your comment regarding this is not needed nor wanted.
Try some plaintive love songs. I'm sure she's embarrassed because she said some unspeakable things to me, but I'm not mourning.