Laura Ingraham: We've been waiting for this moment

[XenaLee]

That is a HORRIBLE perversion of scripture to promote situational ethics and create some kind of morality out of wickedness.  Yeshua DID NOT ABOLISH the Commandment by noting that serving men is greater than rescuing a sheep.  The Commandment still stands.  It was men making the commandment a burden to the indifference of men in need that Christ was addressing.  He was NOT setting up a hierarchy of greater or lesser moral issues.  The Law was always intended from the beginning to underscore justice, mercy and faith while keeping the ordinances to the letter rather than the traditions added to the Law by men.

Using such a verse to justify the selection of a proud immoral man for ruler because Hillary is worse is just another example of how Christianity in America has become nothing but lukewarm if not outright cold.


So be it.

Your party betrayed us over and over again and Trump has sown irreparable division between Conservatives via his own threats, behaviors and those of his rabid followers.

I accept that this rift is irreparable, which is why I moved on and from a compromised and corrupted dead party.


You have NO victory.  The Constitution and Conservatism has no 'victory'.  The GOP killed any chance of 'victory' when it spent it's majority power attacking Conservatives while handing Obama his agenda without opposition, and then everyone doubled down and made a lifelong NY Liberal Democrat Trojan Stalking Horse their prince. 

Your party chose the only candidate who would lose to Hildabeast in a perceived engineered landslide and make her coronation look legitimate.

Your only hope? 

And you people get so upset when it is mentioned that the Trump supporters want him for messiah and king.

As to forgiving - we didn't ask.   We're not interested in having you people 'forgive us' for dumping your failed candidate, your failed party and moving onto where our principles are upheld and promoted. 

Your nominee has succeeded in making this political division permanent.  Fruits of the man you want to make your ruler.

And you know what Jesus said about that "lukewarm" thing. 

Revelation 3:16 ... So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

Supporting Trump, a supposedly lesser version of evil, is still supporting evil and is, in effect, being "on the fence" ....or even jumping over to the evil side...when it comes to adhering to your Christian faith.  I don't dare do that "lesser of evil" thing any more.  It's not conducive to the retention of my soul.

[DiogenesLamp]

The media is cutting it's own throat. Trust in the press is at an all time low. People are noticing. I'm opposed to silencing them. But they are killing themselves in the eyes of the public and I say, let them

I get that response a lot.   I believe it demonstrates an incredible naivete regarding the monster with which we are grappling.   


Google,  Facebook,  Twitter,  etc are grabbing more and more control over the internet and social media,  and they are as left wing as it gets.   

Broadcast media still has an enormous potential to manipulate elections,  and they do it through entertainment as well.   They  sneak their propaganda into their stories in a manner to influence the gullible portions of the populace. 


Remind you of anyone we know? 




And do you remember this? 

This "Black"  President aired from 2001 to 2006.   Hmmm,   I wonder why they did that?   





This stuff is battle space preparation.   


How about one more? 





What access to the public do we have with which to balance this propaganda?  Hmmm?   

[kevindavis007]

A little warning to you Trump supporters, more the fascist you are the less likely you will have some reluctant or very-reluctant  Trump voters. You are not helping Trump at all..

[kevindavis007]

I get that response a lot.   I believe it demonstrates an incredible naivete regarding the monster with which we are grappling.   


Google,  Facebook,  Twitter,  etc are grabbing more and more control over the internet and social media,  and they are as left wing as it gets.   

Broadcast media still has an enormous potential to manipulate elections,  and they do it through entertainment as well.   They  sneak their propaganda into their stories in a manner to influence the gullible portions of the populace. 


Remind you of anyone we know? 




And do you remember this? 

This "Black"  President aired from 2001 to 2006.   Hmmm,   I wonder why they did that?   





This stuff is battle space preparation.   


How about one more? 





What access to the public do we have with which to balance this propaganda?  Hmmm?

I get it the media is bad.. What do you expect Trump to do about it?? Regulate it?

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh my.  You just outted yourself (finally).....and proved what many of us have been suspecting about you.

There is NO WAY IN HELL that any of us anti-Trump folks here would ever vote 'for' Hillary.  But you guys would.  I appreciate the rare display of honesty.  Thanks for that, at least.

Better a quick death than a slow painful one.    I keep waiting for any one of you to cite this justification for your efforts to enable Hillary,   but as of yet I haven't seen anyone suggest this.    You are all about hating Trump,  and nothing about what is the best way to deal with this irrational electorate. 


At least if you were justifying your virtual support for Hillary by saying "Better a quick death than a slow poison",   at least I would have some respect for you,  and regard your position as morally based. 


But you don't.    You don't offer any strategy but hatred of someone you regard as insufficiently pious.   

[DiogenesLamp]

I get it the media is bad.. What do you expect Trump to do about it?? Regulate it?

Absolutely not!  The worst Idea of which I can imagine in the governance of a Republic is to allow the Executive Branch to have control over all the media.  (Such as we would have with Hillary Clinton.)   


I don't want a President involved with regulating the media,  because it would be quickly twisted to his ends rather than the interests of the public.   


But the evidence is ample that something must be done to balance or negate the influence of one party control of all the information streams.   


I'm open to ideas,  but what I have been long suggesting is the creation of a Board of Governors elected by national elections,  and given the power to force the media to hire conservatives and provide balanced opinion to their constant stream of left wing drivel.   

I would rather have regulation of the media in the hands of elected representatives than in the hands of Liberal cronies and allies.   At the very least,  it would likely reflect the same representation that Republicans and Democrats have in Congress.   



If you got a better idea,   i'm all ears. 

[musiclady]

Better a quick death than a slow painful one.    I keep waiting for any one of you to cite this justification for your efforts to enable Hillary,   but as of yet I haven't seen anyone suggest this.    You are all about hating Trump,  and nothing about what is the best way to deal with this irrational electorate. 


At least if you were justifying your virtual support for Hillary by saying "Better a quick death than a slow poison",   at least I would have some respect for you,  and regard your position as morally based. 


But you don't.    You don't offer any strategy but hatred of someone you regard as insufficiently pious.

So you don't even believe in fundamental ethics then, Dio?  It's only "piety" (which you clearly deride) that makes men treat women with respect and refrain from molesting them?  Incredible.

Do you not realize that ANY man worth ANYthing does not molest women?

And yet, here you are, maligning people who find sexual assault repulsive.

The "strategy" we offer is to vote for neither of the corrupt, evil candidates foisted upon us by two corrupt parties (one more recently corrupt than the other).

There are others on the ballot, and the strategy to not cheer on evil is one that many of us are choosing.

Obviously, you have chosen another "strategy," and that is to promote evil people and their evil deeds.

Not a particularly wise choice, is it?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Integrity matters.  Respect for others matters.  Character matters.

It ALL matters, @Maj. Bill Martin

This isn't a political issue that Republicans are making worse.

This is a question of fundamental soundness of character, and Trump's complete lack of it.  The Republican party used to stand for something..... not just politically, but in matters of virtue.  If we had a candidate or politician who fell short of moral values, he was disgraced, not lauded.

I'm not talking about lauding him for it.  I'm taking about whether it should be a determinative factor in whether or not you should vote for him in a general election.  And that's leaving aside all of Hillary's questionable moral failings....

But the bottom line is this:  do you think a candidate's personal moral failings are more important that the policies supported by that candidate (including judicial appointments), and by their opponent?  Because to me, who he and Hillary, respectively, choose to nominate to the Supreme Court is far more important, and far more relevant to the future of this country, than what was revealed in those tapes.

Do you agree, or disagree?

[XenaLee]

Better a quick death than a slow painful one.    I keep waiting for any one of you to cite this justification for your efforts to enable Hillary,   but as of yet I haven't seen anyone suggest this.    You are all about hating Trump,  and nothing about what is the best way to deal with this irrational electorate. 

That's how you would justify voting FOR Hillary?  Seriously?  There IS no justification for that, in my humble opinion.  And yet, here you are.....even now....after admitting that YOU would vote for Hillary....trying to suggest that we anti-Trump folks are attempting to enable Hillary.  Do you not see the disconnect in your logic (or lack thereof) here?  You're talking in circles, DL.  And for the record, I don't hate Trump.  I hate what he stands for and what he has stood for most of his life and what he has done to the non-leftist side of the political aisle....which is divide us further and better than Obama ever could have....and by dividing us, has successfully destroyed us "from within".  And here I thought Obama was the ultimate Trojan horse.  Yet another idea that Trump has seen and has copied.....Trump is the GOP Trojan horse large.

At least if you were justifying your virtual support for Hillary by saying "Better a quick death than a slow poison",   at least I would have some respect for you,  and regard your position as morally based.

You're the one supporting Hillary by supporting Trump.  And as for any respect you might have had for me.....save it and stuff it.  I'd appreciate you withholding that "respect" ....considering the source.

But you don't.    You don't offer any strategy but hatred of someone you regard as insufficiently pious.

And your strategy has been outted by your admission of guilt...ie that you would vote for Hillary over a Republican candidate "not" of your choosing.  Again, thanks for the honesty....and for validating what I already suspected.

[Norm Lenhart]

Better a quick death than a slow painful one.    I keep waiting for any one of you to cite this justification for your efforts to enable Hillary,   but as of yet I haven't seen anyone suggest this.    You are all about hating Trump,  and nothing about what is the best way to deal with this irrational electorate. 


At least if you were justifying your virtual support for Hillary by saying "Better a quick death than a slow poison",   at least I would have some respect for you,  and regard your position as morally based. 


But you don't.    You don't offer any strategy but hatred of someone you regard as insufficiently pious.

Actually we have been offering strategy since Reagan left office. Your camp would rather vote for liberals than ours of voting for conservatives, which is where it all begins, up to, apparently, blowing it up with Trump, and then with Hillary.

It's always excuses followed by that lame ass 'you got any ideas? Lets hear them!" nonsense. You have been hearing them for 2 decades. You just prefer voting liberal every election, then complaining about the consequence of your actions, then voting liberal in the next election, then ...ad infinitum.

Oh, but to give credit where do, you all occasionally take time to blame others for your mistakes.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Absolutely not!  The worst Idea of which I can imagine in the governance of a Republic is to allow the Executive Branch to have control over all the media.  (Such as we would have with Hillary Clinton.)

I would generalize that to putting control of political media in control of any branch or organ of the government....   

I don't want a President involved with regulating the media,  because it would be quickly twisted to his ends rather than the interests of the public.

   

Agree....

I'm open to ideas,  but what I have been long suggesting is the creation of a Board of Governors elected by national elections,  and given the power to force the media to hire conservatives and provide balanced opinion to their constant stream of left wing drivel.

Yikes!  two questions:

1) what happens if/when this democratically elected "Board of Governors" turns out to be left-leaning....

2) who determines what constitutes a "conservative" that is required to be hired, and what constitutes a "balanced opinion?"  Because I think their idea of conservative would rapidly become something on the order of "Hillary Clinton", and "progressive" would be something to the left of Elizabeth Warren.  Both types of music -- country and western!

I would rather have regulation of the media in the hands of elected representatives than in the hands of Liberal cronies and allies.   At the very least,  it would likely reflect the same representation that Republicans and Democrats have in Congress.

I honestly think I disagree with this more than just about anything else I've read here.  There are no good solutions to the problem of media bias, but the only one that offers any hope at all is keeping the government -- any arm of it -- as far away from regulating political speech as possible.  At least conservatives will have the option to buy their own media time, networks, without government oversight or permission required.  The worst thing about this is wanting it to mirror representation in Congress.  Because what that means is that as soon as one party gains a clear political upper hand (as the Democrats did in the 2008) elections, they'll also have control of the machinery that controls/regulates political speech.

Additionally, this kind of structure would legally silence political discussion outside the two major parties.  That's...not right.

[DiogenesLamp]

Here's the problem with that "tempest in a teacup" meme and false analysis.  Trump, in order to beat Hillary, will need every single vote that he can dredge up and get.  Instead of gaining votes, he's losing them....in droves.  That TiaT is costing him the election, as planned.  And they say there is yet more coming...more exposure of the "real" Donald Trump.  And no....merely pointing to Bill Clinton and saying "But..but...but....Bill did far worse!" ain't gonna cut it.  Not now.  Not ever.

The consequences of this are a fabricated product of the Liberal media.   You are simply jumping through their hoops in trying to make this a story of consequence.   It isn't.   It is in fact stupid.   

If Bill Clinton inserting cigars in one of his employee's unmentionable is not a story,   Trump saying "Grab the P*ssy"  is also not a story.   

The vile and perverted members of the media are simply trying to spur outrage  to this non-story.   They do not care about explicit and vulgar sex stuff,  they are just pretending they care so as to manipulate social conservatives in an effort to help Hillary.   







And  they do these  sorts of things because we do not visit consequences upon them for these attempts to manipulate the elections. 

[kevindavis007]

Absolutely not!  The worst Idea of which I can imagine in the governance of a Republic is to allow the Executive Branch to have control over all the media.  (Such as we would have with Hillary Clinton.)   


I don't want a President involved with regulating the media,  because it would be quickly twisted to his ends rather than the interests of the public.   


But the evidence is ample that something must be done to balance or negate the influence of one party control of all the information streams.   


I'm open to ideas,  but what I have been long suggesting is the creation of a Board of Governors elected by national elections,  and given the power to force the media to hire conservatives and provide balanced opinion to their constant stream of left wing drivel.   

So you want more Government??  Sorry I wouldn't trust the 'Board of Governors' to be conservative..

I would rather have regulation of the media in the hands of elected representatives than in the hands of Liberal cronies and allies.   At the very least,  it would likely reflect the same representation that Republicans and Democrats have in Congress.   






If you got a better idea,   i'm all ears.

My idea is to leave the Government out of it. I thought you wanted a smaller Government..

[DiogenesLamp]

So you don't even believe in fundamental ethics then, Dio?  It's only "piety" (which you clearly deride) that makes men treat women with respect and refrain from molesting them?  Incredible.

I am not really in the mood to speak with strawmen today. 

[musiclady]

I'm not talking about lauding him for it.  I'm taking about whether it should be a determinative factor in whether or not you should vote for him in a general election.  And that's leaving aside all of Hillary's questionable moral failings....

But the bottom line is this:  do you think a candidate's personal moral failings are more important that the policies supported by that candidate (including judicial appointments), and by their opponent?  Because to me, who he and Hillary, respectively, choose to nominate to the Supreme Court is far more important, and far more relevant to the future of this country, than what was revealed in those tapes.

Do you agree, or disagree?

The problem is, Bill, that Trump's fundamental political beliefs are exactly the same as Hillary's

Before the revelation that he was also a sexual predator (in addition to being completely immoral in every sense of the word), the truth was know that he's a liberal with liberal political beliefs.

He is also a pathological liar, so to trust that he will select SC Justices that are in any sense of the word conservative is just a pipe dream of a hopeful naïf.

He is corrupt through and through, and that matters greatly.

"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate, look to his character. The scriptures teach that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multified frauds, breaches of trust, and embezzlement of public property which tarnish the character of our country and disgrace government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility, he sacrifices not only his interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country." Noah Webster, 1823

Republicans used to do that.  Some of us still believe in what the Founders believed.

And some clearly don't.

It matters.

[XenaLee]

The consequences of this are a fabricated product of the Liberal media.   You are simply jumping through their hoops in trying to make this a story of consequence.   It isn't.   It is in fact stupid.   

If Bill Clinton inserting cigars in one of his employee's unmentionable is not a story,   Trump saying "Grab the P*ssy"  is also not a story.   

The vile and perverted members of the media are simply trying to spur outrage  to this non-story.   They do not care about explicit and vulgar sex stuff,  they are just pretending they care so as to manipulate social conservatives in an effort to help Hillary.   







And  they do these  sorts of things because we do not visit consequences upon them for these attempts to manipulate the elections.

Oh good grief.  I'm not jumping through any hoops.  It's not required.

How many times must we restate this.  It's not about Trump's repulsive rhetoric and behavior, past OR present, in so much as it's about the voters' perception of him now.  What part of "he's losing voters in droves" over this latest smut release are you incapable of comprehending?   And there are presumably other releases, probably even more damaging, on the way.  By the time November 8 rolls around, Trump's campaign will be DOA.

This is all EXACTLY what we predicted and tried to tell the Trump supporters from the beginning.  That Trump has more bags and baggage than Hillary's eyes.  And that it would be brought out, revealed, exposed AND USED by the Democrats. 

And your deflection is typical and expected...considering that you have admitted that you would vote for Hillary over a Republican.  Suspected it.  Got it.  You're out of the closet.

[musiclady]

I am not really in the mood to speak with strawmen today. 

If you can't communicate what you really mean, then maybe you should stop trying.

Because what I responded to is what you said.

Your dismissal is an indication that you have nothing with which to refute what my argument.

I suppose that's part of why you continue to defend a sexual predator.....

[XenaLee]

If you can't communicate what you really mean, then maybe you should stop trying.

Because what I responded to is what you said.

Your dismissal is an indication that you have nothing with which to refute what my argument.

I suppose that's part of why you continue to defend a sexual predator.....

Well hey, musiclady....on the bright and positive side....

at least he didn't do like most Trump-supporting (would vote for Hillary) lefties usually do...

and resort to the personal insults and name-calling...lol.  That's something, I guess.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This is all EXACTLY what we predicted and tried to tell the Trump supporters from the beginning.  That Trump has more bags and baggage than Hillary's eyes.  And that it would be brought out, revealed, exposed AND USED by the Democrats.

I have read this a lot recently, and the only thing that comes to mind is...so what?

Look, I thought/said the exact same thing, but that was in the context of a primary election that has since been decided.   Saying "see, I was right" really has absolutely zero value going forward.  Yes, you were right, I was right, many of us were right.  But how is that remotely relevant to the best course of action moving forward?  It's over, done, in the past.

Perhaps if all those who supported Trump in the primaries could have seen into the future and seen what was going to happen, they might have voted differently.  But they couldn't, and voted for Trump.  Being "right" about that is irrelevant now.

[XenaLee]

I have read this a lot recently, and the only thing that comes to mind is...so what?

Look, I thought/said the exact same thing, but that was in the context of a primary election that has since been decided.   Saying "see, I was right" really has absolutely zero value going forward.  Yes, you were right, I was right, many of us were right.  But how is that remotely relevant to the best course of action moving forward?  It's over, done, in the past.

Perhaps if all those who supported Trump in the primaries could have seen into the future and seen what was going to happen, they might have voted differently.  But they couldn't, and voted for Trump.  Being "right" about that is irrelevant now.

You're actually asking "how" it's relevant?   Quite simply....it is relevant now because the only chance the GOP has NOW of salvaging this disaster of an election is by forcing Trump to step down and running Mike Pence at the top of the ticket.  That is the ONLY way they have a chance of winning at this point.  It's not quite over yet....but it will be....if Trump supporters continue to insist on keeping Trump on the top of the ticket, despite all indications that he will lose, and lose badly, this November.

[DiogenesLamp]

I would generalize that to putting control of political media in control of any branch or organ of the government....   

Was the Production Code Administration all that bad?   It wasn't an arm of the government,  but it would have been had the Industry not taken the step of regulating itself.   I do not believe any sort of self regulation is any longer possible.   There is simply too much inbreeding between the existing media people and the Democrat party.   



   

Yikes!  two questions:

1) what happens if/when this democratically elected "Board of Governors" turns out to be left-leaning....

You mean unlike what we have now?   Are you telling me you can conceive of a manner in which the media would be even more left wing?   I figure we have pretty much pegged the needle on that,  don't you?   

And why would it  be left leaning if it is elected from the States,  or perhaps appointed by the State legislatures?   Aren't most of the State legislatures currently in the hands of Republicans?   

2) who determines what constitutes a "conservative" that is required to be hired, and what constitutes a "balanced opinion?"  Because I think their idea of conservative would rapidly become something on the order of "Hillary Clinton", and "progressive" would be something to the left of Elizabeth Warren.  Both types of music -- country and western!

I would suggest the designation of "adequate representation"  would be made by the elected or Legislature appointed officials.   I've been to a lot of party meetings,  and i've met a lot of Republican elected officials,   and I must say I generally trust their judgement about such matters.   

I honestly think I disagree with this more than just about anything else I've read here.  There are no good solutions to the problem of media bias, but the only one that offers any hope at all is keeping the government -- any arm of it -- as far away from regulating political speech as possible.

Uh Duh.  That's what we have now.   Have you not been keeping up with Obama's feeding stories to the press?   We *HAVE*  government control of media,  so long as it is Democrat government.   Hillary is controlling the press RIGHT NOW!   

  At least conservatives will have the option to buy their own media time, networks, without government oversight or permission required.  The worst thing about this is wanting it to mirror representation in Congress.  Because what that means is that as soon as one party gains a clear political upper hand (as the Democrats did in the 2008) elections, they'll also have control of the machinery that controls/regulates political speech.

I take it you haven't been keeping up with what has been going on lately with the FCC Commissioners?   

We already have leftwing control.   There is no place else to go but up.   

What you are suggesting is that we leave the left wing control that already exists, locked into the system.   

As a practical matter,  this makes a solution to our larger problems unsolvable. 

[DiogenesLamp]

So you want more Government?? 

No!   That's why I want the current Pro-Government propaganda corps forced to provide the opposition opinions and personnel. 

Do you want more government?   Just keep ignoring the problem.  You will get more government. 

Sorry I wouldn't trust the 'Board of Governors' to be conservative..

Yeah,  they would be more liberal than what we have now.   After all,  about 95% of the media is Liberal,   we might end up getting that last 5% of independents squeezed out of them.

My idea is to leave the Government out of it. I thought you wanted a smaller Government..

You are not going to get the government to stay out of it.   We already have the government (Obama)  dictating news stories,   and a lot of people are working hard to get a different government (Hillary)  controlling it in the future.   

"Government"  is already in it.   The best we can do is use the power of government to force half of that government  out of it.   


We need to infuse new blood into the system until it is 50% non-government,  and "WE THE PEOPLE"  need to do it.   

[DiogenesLamp]

If you can't communicate what you really mean, then maybe you should stop trying.

I do not believe the communication problem is on the Transmitter end.   

[musiclady]

I do not believe the communication problem is on the Transmitter end.

Then assume you are communicating to someone stupid, (and not with a Mensa IQ like me), and speak in words dumb enough for a dumb person (like you think I am) to understand.

Give it a try.

Cause if you didn't mean what you actually said, I'd love to know what the heck you were talking about.   ^-^

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You're actually asking "how" it's relevant?   Quite simply....it is relevant now because the only chance the GOP has NOW of salvaging this disaster of an election is by forcing Trump to step down and running Mike Pence at the top of the ticket.

Actually, who was right in the past is completely irrelevant to what is the right course of action to take now, but anyway....

How are we to accomplish removing Trump?