Ted Cruz drops out of presidential race

[LonestarDream]

Really like your posts.   Living in NYC I hear this all the time:

and the Country just isn't going to move back on some of their prime issues.

History has shown us that social issues will be resolved or the society fails.

Now Trump did well with half the social conservatives, especially down South.

But he will need ALL of them for the general.  And winning socons starts with reaching out and apologizing to practically all the candidates Trump has trashed.

[LonestarDream]

I have to just say no.   

Nancy's anti-drug program was very effective.  Now we have more deaths from drug ODs than traffic accidents.

The 1980s were conservative like the 1950s.

Reagan fought the drug epidemic and created an environment where the senate was taken for the supreme court nominees.

Reagan regularly prayed and jaw boned about god in the public square.   More anti-abortion protests were 'allowed'

Couldn't agree more.  But Reagan's legacy which followed his goals wasn't about social conservatism, nor did he let his social conservatism interfere with achieving his big goals. 

[txradioguy]

Nancy's anti-drug program was very effective.  Now we have more deaths from drug ODs than traffic accidents.

That's Reagan's fault how exactly?

Reagan fought the drug epidemic and created an environment where the senate was taken for the supreme court nominees.

I'm not even sure WTF that even means.

Reagan regularly prayed and jaw boned about god in the public square.   More anti-abortion protests were 'allowed'

You're really clueless on this stuff aren't you?  Or is it just you can't stand Reagan and this is how you let it show?

[roamer_1]

Can't argue the size of their voting bloc, and but no Democrat in many elections has embraced social conservatism.

Ahh... so a 'where else you gonna go?' attitude. That doesn't work out well.

Social conservatives have been a part of the GOP, and I hope it continues.  But they also have to understand that our culture drives much of our social change and the Country just isn't going to move back on some of their prime issues.

If one allows 'culture' to drive social change, we will inevitably continue into the abyss. There is not a single social ill that does not find it's cure in returning to the Judeo-Christian Ethic.

But if their principles also include national defense and fiscal conservatism, they will find there's no other viable political party if they want to be part of the solution rather than just a bystander.  The GOP has let us down on many occasions.  But the only remaining alternative is totally unacceptable to me.

This statement is tremendously short-sighted.

There is no fiscal conservatism possible in the face of moral turpitude. Our 'culture'  destroys families and breeds drug addiction, bastard children, and crime. And thus welfare roles are burgeoning, and penitentiaries are overflowing. Our 'culture' is impossible to afford. 

And there is no national defense if there is no honor to defend in the first place. Soon enough our armies will be turned inward, because the very same culture that that is destroying us will require it. and thus our own defense will rise to enslave us.

Make no mistake - we do not have freedom. we have liberty. Liberty has responsibilities. Freedom has consequences. The Judeo-Christian Ethic is the very root of our founding. Cut us off from that, and we will surely perish.

To so blithely discard the principles of Christianity as somehow less important than the other principles of Conservatism is an ill-fated path. As Conservatives, we live by the notion that certain things are inviolate and always true. If ANY can be discarded, if any grow old and no longer applicable, then they are not principle things. If modernity causes Christian values to diminish in worth, then it also can cause the principles you defend to wax away. Be careful what you wish for.

And why then should the Christians help a party that disdains them? If you are not willing to fight for me, why on earth would I fight for you? If this party is so willing to adopt the mores of liberalism, make no mistake, it must necessarily also adopt it's means. And that is exactly what it is doing. And I think you know it.


 

[LonestarDream]

You read my post 180 degrees out of phase .  Reagan was the best.

The anit-drug campaign worked.  Now that we DONT have social conservatism there is a huge drug problem. 

Letting social conservatism go has costs.

That's Reagan's fault how exactly?



I'm not even sure WTF that even means.

You're really clueless on this stuff aren't you?  Or is it just you can't stand Reagan and this is how you let it show?

[LonestarDream]

Well done.  It make take a few decades, but social ills WILL eventually have enormous costs.

Ahh... so a 'where else you gonna go?' attitude. That doesn't work out well.

If one allows 'culture' to drive social change, we will inevitably continue into the abyss. There is not a single social ill that does not find it's cure in returning to the Judeo-Christian Ethic.

This statement is tremendously short-sighted.

There is no fiscal conservatism possible in the face of moral turpitude. Our 'culture'  destroys families and breeds drug addiction, bastard children, and crime. And thus welfare roles are burgeoning, and penitentiaries are overflowing. Our 'culture' is impossible to afford. 

And there is no national defense if there is no honor to defend in the first place. Soon enough our armies will be turned inward, because the very same culture that that is destroying us will require it. and thus our own defense will rise to enslave us.

Make no mistake - we do not have freedom. we have liberty. Liberty has responsibilities. Freedom has consequences. The Judeo-Christian Ethic is the very root of our founding. Cut us off from that, and we will surely perish.

To so blithely discard the principles of Christianity as somehow less important than the other principles of Conservatism is an ill-fated path. As Conservatives, we live by the notion that certain things are inviolate and always true. If ANY can be discarded, if any grow old and no longer applicable, then they are not principle things. If modernity causes Christian values to diminish in worth, then it also can cause the principles you defend to wax away. Be careful what you wish for.

And why then should the Christians help a party that disdains them? If you are not willing to fight for me, why on earth would I fight for you? If this party is so willing to adopt the mores of liberalism, make no mistake, it must necessarily also adopt it's means. And that is exactly what it is doing. And I think you know it.

[LonestarDream]

Reagan had continual problems getting SC nominees through, especially during the years when the Senate was controlled by the dems.

I'm not even sure WTF that even means.

[MACVSOG68]

I have to just say no.   

Nancy's anti-drug program was very effective.  Now we have more deaths from drug ODs than traffic accidents.

The 1980s were conservative like the 1950s.

Reagan fought the drug epidemic and created an environment where the senate was taken for the supreme court nominees.

Reagan regularly prayed and jaw boned about god in the public square.   More anti-abortion protests were 'allowed'

Every first lady traditionally has an issue, usually a social one they work on.  I usually like them, as they have value, and can let the president work on other tougher issues as Reagan did.   The war on drugs has been around since Nixon and has been supported and excoriated by both sides of the aisle.  Reagan was a Christian not afraid to talk about his religion in public.  But he still didn't let social conservatives rule his term in office as he explained in his biography.

We'll just have to agree to disagree

[MACVSOG68]

Ahh... so a 'where else you gonna go?' attitude. That doesn't work out well.

Outside of "making a statement", that's about the size of it.

If one allows 'culture' to drive social change, we will inevitably continue into the abyss. There is not a single social ill that does not find it's cure in returning to the Judeo-Christian Ethic.

The people drive social change.  It is cultural whether anyone likes that word or not.  And the last thing I (and most Americans) want is a central government telling me what social values I should have.  That Judeo-Christian ethic must come from within, not from government dictates.

This statement is tremendously short-sighted.

There is no fiscal conservatism possible in the face of moral turpitude. Our 'culture'  destroys families and breeds drug addiction, bastard children, and crime. And thus welfare roles are burgeoning, and penitentiaries are overflowing. Our 'culture' is impossible to afford. 

And there is no national defense if there is no honor to defend in the first place. Soon enough our armies will be turned inward, because the very same culture that that is destroying us will require it. and thus our own defense will rise to enslave us.

Make no mistake - we do not have freedom. we have liberty. Liberty has responsibilities. Freedom has consequences. The Judeo-Christian Ethic is the very root of our founding. Cut us off from that, and we will surely perish.

To so blithely discard the principles of Christianity as somehow less important than the other principles of Conservatism is an ill-fated path. As Conservatives, we live by the notion that certain things are inviolate and always true. If ANY can be discarded, if any grow old and no longer applicable, then they are not principle things. If modernity causes Christian values to diminish in worth, then it also can cause the principles you defend to wax away. Be careful what you wish for.

And why then should the Christians help a party that disdains them? If you are not willing to fight for me, why on earth would I fight for you? If this party is so willing to adopt the mores of liberalism, make no mistake, it must necessarily also adopt it's means. And that is exactly what it is doing. And I think you know it.

Well, it hasn't all been an ethical paradise.  The Judeo-Christian heritage has embraced slavery, battles against women's suffrage, laws preventing interracial marriage, laws to prevent birth control, laws to prevent early stage abortions for any reason, laws to regulate behavior in the privacy of one's own home.  The Constitution starts with "We the People", not with "We the Church" for a reason.  If the people want to change their social values, our Constitution provides for that. 

Liberty does carry responsibility, I agree.  And liberties can be controlled and regulated by the state.  Rights can be subjugated but never taken away.  And Americans have certain rights, including the freedom to believe or not believe, and most especially the freedom to tell the world about those beliefs.  I choose to believe that conservatism isn't bound by some particular religious tenets other than an absolute right to believe as one chooses.

Anyway, I respect the social conservatives as part of conservatism in general.  I hope they come together and help keep Hillary out of the White House.  If not, that's their decision.  I've no ethical or moral issue with mine.   

[LonestarDream]

There were heavy influences by Jerry Falwell and other Christian leaders.

There is just no denying the third pillar of Reagan's conservatism .

Every first lady traditionally has an issue, usually a social one they work on.  I usually like them, as they have value, and can let the president work on other tougher issues as Reagan did.   The war on drugs has been around since Nixon and has been supported and excoriated by both sides of the aisle.  Reagan was a Christian not afraid to talk about his religion in public.  But he still didn't let social conservatives rule his term in office as he explained in his biography.

We'll just have to agree to disagree

[LonestarDream]

Wow, that is a sincere shame you take such a dim view of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Europe and its current invasion and mores provides a road map of how the absence of Judeo-Christian values works out.

The founders wanted MORE faith and religion in the public square by not allowing the state to advance any particular religion.

Without our Judeo-Christian heritage, there is no Natural Law and likely Sharia Law.

Well, it hasn't all been an ethical paradise.  The Judeo-Christian heritage has embraced slavery, battles against women's suffrage, laws preventing interracial marriage, laws to prevent birth control, laws to prevent early stage abortions for any reason, laws to regulate behavior in the privacy of one's own home.  The Constitution starts with "We the People", not with "We the Church" for a reason.  If the people want to change their social values, our Constitution provides for that. 
   

[libertybele]

Romney lost for several reasons; being a Mormon was one, flip-flopping on issues, being too laid back and not going after Obama was probably the main reason.  I also find fault with Carl Rove getting on national television with his stupid charts reassuring the GOP electorate that there was no way Romney would lose -- lots of people stayed home thinking it was a done deal.

Regardless, the party got behind Romney.  Conservative news, GOPe, the RNC and for the most part the GOP electorate got behind him.  It is odd and troubling that several days have passed and the list of GOPe who will not support Trump keeps growing. The mindset is no one who wants to continue their political career wants anything to do with Trump.  Trump is again meeting with Ryan.  Who knows what the meeting is about ... other than perhaps Trump will try to bribe him. Perhaps Trump will offer him the VP spot.

[roamer_1]

Couldn't agree more.  But Reagan's legacy which followed his goals wasn't about social conservatism, nor did he let his social conservatism interfere with achieving his big goals.  The issues of the day were national defense and the economy.

And abortion.
And drugs. 

Apparently none was immovable though.  He was quite pragmatic, a quality the far right eschews.

That is not true.
 

As for his fiscal conservatism, it was Reagan who began the huge spiral of debt that is close to out of control today. 

I agree he overspent - But he also set off a boom that lasted twenty years. 'Trickle Down' worked. And some was necessary - He spent a ton on our military, which had been allowed to decay precipitously under the Democrats...

While I don't give him a pass exactly, I would lay the blame on GHWB for not reigning it in, once the reboot was well underway... Sad that Clinton did better (largely due to the 94 Congress). But from Dubya onward... *shakes head*

The TEA parties did start off with practical goals, Obamcare and government growth.  But the movement was soon enough taken over by groups that saw it as a vehicle for moving their own political goals and after the great TP victories of 2010, has diminished significantly through infighting, fraud, and a propensity to put crazies up for election. 

The rumors of our demise is greatly exaggerated as the last midterms and Cruz grassroots attest.

Congrats.  You now know one who voted for Romney, and three that will vote for Trump or whoever is the ultimate GOP candidate.

Then there's the problem. Most of the folks I know BARELY could vote for W (IIRC I voted Keyes)... And the only reason I voted for him the second time around was our wartime footing (me, being pragmatic - and I rue the day). I haven't pulled the lever for the Big Rhinestone 'R' since W, and removed myself from the party in '07. And I know very few Republicans. Most (by far) are independents now, or Constitution/AIP/Libertarian.

Never again will I blindly vote for the lesser evil - All that will get you is evil.

[LonestarDream]

At about 5:15 into the video:

...this blessed land was set apart in a special way. Men and women who came to this land not in search of gold but of god.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdJ3jJr8YGw


There are many other references to Reagan invoking God that can be seen by searching 'Reagan national prayer speech' in youtube.

If one allows 'culture' to drive social change, we will inevitably continue into the abyss. There is not a single social ill that does not find it's cure in returning to the Judeo-Christian Ethic.

This statement is tremendously short-sighted.

There is no fiscal conservatism possible in the face of moral turpitude. Our 'culture'  destroys families and breeds drug addiction, bastard children, and crime. And thus welfare roles are burgeoning, and penitentiaries are overflowing. Our 'culture' is impossible to afford. 

And there is no national defense if there is no honor to defend in the first place. Soon enough our armies will be turned inward, because the very same culture that that is destroying us will require it. and thus our own defense will rise to enslave us.

Make no mistake - we do not have freedom. we have liberty. Liberty has responsibilities. Freedom has consequences. The Judeo-Christian Ethic is the very root of our founding. Cut us off from that, and we will surely perish.

To so blithely discard the principles of Christianity as somehow less important than the other principles of Conservatism is an ill-fated path. As Conservatives, we live by the notion that certain things are inviolate and always true. If ANY can be discarded, if any grow old and no longer applicable, then they are not principle things. If modernity causes Christian values to diminish in worth, then it also can cause the principles you defend to wax away. Be careful what you wish for.

[roamer_1]

Well done.  It make take a few decades, but social ills WILL eventually have enormous costs.

Thanks - but those enormous costs are here already.

[wolfcreek]

You will find that Conservatives are not interested in positions and campaign promises. They look at the record. History makes a good bellwether to determine character - and without character, 'positions and promises' mean nothing.

Where is Trump's record of governing?

[Mesaclone]

Outside of "making a statement", that's about the size of it.

The people drive social change.  It is cultural whether anyone likes that word or not.  And the last thing I (and most Americans) want is a central government telling me what social values I should have.  That Judeo-Christian ethic must come from within, not from government dictates.

Well, it hasn't all been an ethical paradise.  The Judeo-Christian heritage has embraced slavery, battles against women's suffrage, laws preventing interracial marriage, laws to prevent birth control, laws to prevent early stage abortions for any reason, laws to regulate behavior in the privacy of one's own home.  The Constitution starts with "We the People", not with "We the Church" for a reason.  If the people want to change their social values, our Constitution provides for that. 

Liberty does carry responsibility, I agree.  And liberties can be controlled and regulated by the state.  Rights can be subjugated but never taken away.  And Americans have certain rights, including the freedom to believe or not believe, and most especially the freedom to tell the world about those beliefs.  I choose to believe that conservatism isn't bound by some particular religious tenets other than an absolute right to believe as one chooses.

Anyway, I respect the social conservatives as part of conservatism in general.  I hope they come together and help keep Hillary out of the White House.  If not, that's their decision.  I've no ethical or moral issue with mine.   

Incredibly well stated, Mac. You are a true role model for the rest of us in both your reasoning and civility. My gratitude is yours, sir!

[DCPatriot]

Where is Trump's record of governing?

A self-employed entrepreneur is "governing" the moment his feet touch the floor in the morning.     

Especially one worth Billions!   

[wolfcreek]

A self-employed entrepreneur is "governing" the moment his feet touch the floor in the morning.     

Especially one worth Billions!

Given the ECONOMY being the number 1 issue in most polls and Trump promising to fix it, you'd think he would have more support.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A self-employed entrepreneur is "governing" the moment his feet touch the floor in the morning.     

Especially one worth Billions!

As much as you may want to believe that, it's simply not true.

A CEO like Trump makes final decisions that are law in his companies. He can't be vetoed or outright reversed by other entities of equal power like Congress and the Supreme Court.

He's not accountable to anyone but himself.

Businesses are managed or run.

"Governing' a business is not even part of the language.

[sinkspur]

Given the ECONOMY being the number 1 issue in most polls and Trump promising to fix it, you'd think he would have more support.

Witness Trump's statement about discounting the debt, which move would tank the bond markets, to see why he has no more support than he does.

[roamer_1]

Outside of "making a statement", that's about the size of it.

'Away' is the answer to the question, as all y'all should well know. The Republicans have been hemorrhaging Conservatives for a decade.

The people drive social change.  It is cultural whether anyone likes that word or not.

No, liberalism has been injected into our culture as counterculture, and through national laws and by way of judicial fiat. The infection has dang near killed us all.

And the last thing I (and most Americans) want is a central government telling me what social values I should have. 

That's what laws do. In the quasi-prophetic words of Bob Dylan: 'You gotta serve somebody'. There is no amoral position.

That Judeo-Christian ethic must come from within, not from government dictates.

Funny how government 'can't' dictate Judeo-Christian Ethics - Actual right and wrong, good and evil - But it CAN dictate against it. And does more and more.

Well, it hasn't all been an ethical paradise. 

Really?

The Judeo-Christian heritage has embraced slavery, battles against women's suffrage, laws preventing interracial marriage,

Both were the norm - the environment caused by a Christian nation is what delivered us FROM these things.

laws to prevent birth control, laws to prevent early stage abortions for any reason,

Good.

laws to regulate behavior in the privacy of one's own home. 

FAR less than the laws that regulate you now.

The Constitution starts with "We the People", not with "We the Church" for a reason.  If the people want to change their social values, our Constitution provides for that. 

Our nation began with the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. You should read it some time.

Liberty does carry responsibility, I agree.  And liberties can be controlled and regulated by the state.  Rights can be subjugated but never taken away.

Wow.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...  -United States Declaration of Independence


Government is to PROTECT our rights, not regulate them.

And Americans have certain rights, including the freedom to believe or not believe, and most especially the freedom to tell the world about those beliefs.  I choose to believe that conservatism isn't bound by some particular religious tenets other than an absolute right to believe as one chooses.

It is precisely that Judeo-Christian Ethic that forms and defines all those things - And precisely Christian tolerance that allows it. The liberal hell we're heading for certainly does not.

Anyway, I respect the social conservatives as part of conservatism in general.  I hope they come together and help keep Hillary out of the White House.  If not, that's their decision.  I've no ethical or moral issue with mine.   

Not going to happen.

[MACVSOG68]

Wow, that is a sincere shame you take such a dim view of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Europe and its current invasion and mores provides a road map of how the absence of Judeo-Christian values works out.

The founders wanted MORE faith and religion in the public square by not allowing the state to advance any particular religion.

Without our Judeo-Christian heritage, there is no Natural Law and likely Sharia Law.

We don't erase history for the sake of the present.  I love this Country and its heritage, but I won't make excuses and ignore the bad times to better accept today.  And yes, the Founders wanted freedom of religion, and from it, if that is the choice.  There is not one mention of God in the Constitution, and that's also what the Founders did.  I very much appreciate that churches and other places of worship generally do far more good today than they sometimes did in the past two thousand years.  I simply want to ensure that there's a always a place for peaceful religious thought, words and deeds, and that consistent with the Constitution, our laws neither interfere with nor incorporate those beliefs into our legal structure.

[roamer_1]

Where is Trump's record of governing?

Trump is probably the easiest candidate to vet ever. How he has governed himself in his lifetime is all I need to know.

[driftdiver]

A self-employed entrepreneur is "governing" the moment his feet touch the floor in the morning.     

Especially one worth Billions!

Umm no, as a self-employed entrepreneur myself I do not "govern",  I LEAD.    In Trumps case he is more the figure head than a leader.  He is involved in far too many things to provide any real leadership.  His involvement is typically using his name to attract investors in a project.