Hillary Clinton blew the most winnable election in modern American history.

[Suppressed]

I do that regularly.  Mostly because I want to be clear on just exactly what I am responding to (but also because I remember the days when it was considered rude to have an email signature that was more than four lines because dialup was so slow you could almost read it faster than you could download it).

Exactly.  It's a long-standing practice.


And speaking of large sig blocks, did you ever read alt.fan.warlord?  It was named in honor of "Death Star, War Lord of the West", and people posted .sigs that violated the McQuary limit.

The first posting to alt.fan.warlord consisted of the War Lord's .sig:
 
_____________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                           |
|        |                          \ | /                          |        |
|        |\                          \|/                          /|        |
|  |XXXXX||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ((*))  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<||XXXXX|  |
|        |/                          /|\                          \|        |
|        |                          / | \                          |        |
|                                                                           |
| Death Star                                                                |
| War Lord of the West                               Dkline@doc.bmd.trw.com |
|___________________________________________________________________________|

I sometimes wonder whatever became of him.


[Hey, if I'm going to hijack a thread, at least it's not squabbling with other posters!]

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

And speaking of large sig blocks, did you ever read alt.fan.warlord? 

I did not, but I certainly hope he had the common decency to use tabs instead of spaces.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Hahahahaha, USENET!


Talk about a blast from the past.

[txradioguy]

To be fair, Cruz helped.   

No...not really. Even now you still can't be honest about what happened.

[corbe]

@Right_in_Virginia

   
Poll: Ted Cruz Leads 2016 GOP Field

Cruz's 21-hour stand against Obamacare wins him support.


By Rebekah Metzler | Staff Writer Sept. 27, 2013, at 2:25 p.m. 



Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is already reaping benefits from his 21-hour stand against President Barack Obama's new health care law, as a new poll shows him leading the way for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.


Cruz garnered 20 percent support compared to 17 percent for Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., 14 percent for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, 11 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and 10 percent each for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., according to a survey by Public Policy Polling released Friday. Cruz improved 8 percent from a similar poll in July.


"He's made himself the face of a government shutdown over Obamacare and the Republican base supports that by a 64 to 20 margin," said Tom Jensen, PPP's polling director in a memo accompanying the results. "It's not surprising that Republicans identifying as 'very conservative' support a shutdown 75 to 10, but even the moderate wing of the party supports it by a 46 to 36 margin."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/27/poll-ted-cruz-leads-2016-gop-field

    At this time he was the darling of the Republican party, then Donald came along and pooped all over his parade route.

[LateForLunch]

Because Trump's essential appeal is to hatred and despair; that's how he got the nomination and the election.

Which is SOOO much more ethical and moral than identity politics in which whites, law enforcement, Christians, traditionalists, patriots and people who support immigration changes are all dehumanized. What an unfunny joke. Xenophobic? hah there is no one on the planet more xenophobic than a leftist - who generally use the most vile, incendiary rhetoric imaginable to demonize everyone who disagrees with them strongly as sub-human. Hell Hill-O-Lies even did it to Bernie Sanders and before that to the Eightball Obama (she is the one who started the Birther Movement, not Trump - he simply capitalized on it to grab more free media coverage and hold center stage).

The Democrat party has become the party of hate. Not the rational sort, the schizoaffective sort. Like Ahab or perhaps Jim Jones. Egocentric, megalomaniacal and deeply irrevocably unrepentantly detached from reality. Dangerous to themselves and far worse, to everybody else. Self-adoring, elitist Cacogens who have no place in the meritocracy.

The leftist strategery (sic) was to desperately portray the Republican candidate as worse in every way than the 'Crat - which has brought the nation to the brink of a national crisis where many are talking seriously about how LEOs deserve to be murdered and comparing the president elect to mass murdering despots (virtually all of them leftists or muzz).

Trump beat the leftists at their own game - using words as munitions to create a desired effect, instead of primarily as tools of communication. So what? Hill-O-Lies crimes and offenses and destruction of life, liberty and property are all existential, Trumps mostly all speculative, hypothetical or alleged.

PLEASE keep up this sort of idiocy. You are doing so much more damage the causes leftism espouses than if you had just been gracious, fair-minded, rational good losers.  And wonderful job in defeating Tim Ryan (who was virtually the sole advocate for the latter accountability/soul searching) for Speaker by more than a two-to-one margin. Bravo! PLEASE KEEP POSTING AND EXPRESSING YOUR STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING ELSE!!

[LateForLunch]

  You're Grasping at straws @LateForLunch in bringing WFB into this, he saw Trump coming 16 years ago and this quote from him lays to waste the 'Buckley Rule' you quote.
   I do you an 'A' for Effort, though.

If we would speak of grasping at straws, what of a movement dedicated to judging someone by their past behavior and therefore willfully ignoring their current behavior or being unwilling to consider their future behavior? Such straw-grasping at hypothetical, speculative or alleged behavior only to support unrelenting, wholly megalithic irrational hatred requires a new term for accurate demarcation.

I have little doubt that Buckley would have voted for Trump, since his conservatism was marked above all by a pragmatic engagement with the totality of all political context. He would have recognized fully, the same things that Mark Levin acknowledged - that the disaster represented by Hill-O-Lies and her party was utterly inevitable without question and had its foundations in the most contemporary and grave criteria imaginable.
 For you or anyone else to suggest that Buckely would have represented more of the sort of spineless, RINO-conservative claptrap that National Review staff now display routinely is (forgive me) ludicrous almost beyond the power of words to describe.

If Levin voted for Trump, so would have Buckley. Absolutely no question. See, he was brilliant and sane, apart from having any allegiance to doctrinaire ideology. Buckley was an idealist, not an ideologue. A pragmatist, not a doctrinaire dogmatist.

He would have understood that times had changed and that the era of the use of words as munitions had arrived and that statesmanship as an element of credential for high office had been supplanted by pop-cultural Super Stardom and all of the requirements and licentiousness inherent in that sea-change.

[Sanguine]

...what of a movement dedicated to judging someone by their past behavior and therefore willfully ignoring their current behavior or being unwilling to consider their future behavior?...

Now, that one is a jaw-dropper!

[corbe]

If we would speak of grasping at straws, what of a movement dedicated to judging someone by their past behavior and therefore willfully ignoring their current behavior or being unwilling to consider their future behavior? Such straw-grasping at hypothetical, speculative or alleged behavior only to support unrelenting, wholly megalithic irrational hatred requires a new term for accurate demarcation.

   I agree people change @LateForLunch , but history shows us that at 70yo and a lifetime of Liberalism (attacking Reagan, even), the chances are slim and nill. 
   Keep Believing, your defense of Trump bothers me none.   

I have little doubt that Buckley would have voted for Trump, since his conservatism was marked above all by a pragmatic engagement with the totality of all political context. He would have recognized fully, the same things that Mark Levin acknowledged - that the disaster represented by Hill-O-Lies and her party was utterly inevitable without question and had its foundations in the most contemporary and grave criteria imaginable.

   I would disagree with proof he didn't always pull the 'R' lever.

In 1988 Buckley helped defeat liberal Republican Senator Lowell Weicker in Connecticut. Buckley organized a committee to campaign against Weicker and endorsed his Democratic opponent, Connecticut Attorney General Joseph Lieberman.[106]


 

For you or anyone else to suggest that Buckely would have represented more of the sort of spineless, RINO-conservative claptrap that National Review staff now display routinely is (forgive me) ludicrous almost beyond the power of words to describe.

If Levin voted for Trump, so would have Buckley. Absolutely no question. See, he was brilliant and sane, apart from having any allegiance to doctrinaire ideology. Buckley was an idealist, not an ideologue. A pragmatist, not a doctrinaire dogmatist.

   I know a few TBR'ers here that I respect that voted for Trump, primarily due to the Swing State they live in.
   We can never know or be stupid enough to predict how WFB woulda voted in Connecticut, but being such a blue state, it would have been a wasted effort none the less.

He would have understood that times had changed and that the era of the use of words as munitions had arrived and that statesmanship as an element of credential for high office had been supplanted by pop-cultural Super Stardom and all of the requirements and licentiousness inherent in that sea-change.

   I think he understood that in 2000 when he made the quote you are responding to, and HE clearly disavowed it even then.

   He died at 82 yo in 2008 and was a strong Conservative his whole Adult Life, unlike your guy.
 

[LateForLunch]

   I agree people change @LateForLunch , but history shows us that at 70yo and a lifetime of Liberalism (attacking Reagan, even), the chances are slim and nill. 
   Keep Believing, your defense of Trump bothers me none.   

   I would disagree with proof he didn't always pull the 'R' lever.

In 1988 Buckley helped defeat liberal Republican Senator Lowell Weicker in Connecticut. Buckley organized a committee to campaign against Weicker and endorsed his Democratic opponent, Connecticut Attorney General Joseph Lieberman.[106]


 
   I know a few TBR'ers here that I respect that voted for Trump, primarily due to the Swing State they live in.
   We can never know or be stupid enough to predict how WFB woulda voted in Connecticut, but being such a blue state, it would have been a wasted effort none the less.

   I think he understood that in 2000 when he made the quote you are responding to, and HE clearly disavowed it even then.

   He died at 82 yo in 2008 and was a strong Conservative his whole Adult Life, unlike your guy.

Buckley attacked some of Reagan's policies as I recall, not the man himself. For instance, Buckley opposed what RWR later admitted was his biggest mistake - trusting the 'Crats on Immigration Amnesty.

Come on! Weiker was less-conservative than Leiberman on most issues, which means that Buckley still abided by his Rule.

Clearly disavowed the Buckley Rule!?! I'm pretty sure I would have heard about that. Maybe an attribution other than the other quotation given for the basis of the statement that he would have voted against Trump, since he did not even mention his Rule?

Also, your referring to votes for president in deathly blue states as "wasted effort" is IMO 100% incorrect. As we have seen very clearly in the last few weeks,  when dealing with yammerheads who are deeply ignorant of the value and history of the Electoral College, adding one's vote to the popular total does have significance in the larger picture. 

No doubt there was at least one or two million voters in several of the hopelessly blue states (New York, New Jersey, Eastern-seaboard and Pacific Northwest states) who simply didn't vote for president because they knew their vote was not going to elect anyone in their state nor translate into Electoral College votes.  I was not one of them (in Mexifornia) but I know a whole bunch of self-described Republicans in those states who didn't bother to vote for president.

The Republican party did a HORRIBLE job of reminding people why the popular vote matters - simply for PR in the larger political landscape and to help to get the loud-mouthed malcontents from the opposition party to STFU.

[txradioguy]

Now, that one is a jaw-dropper!

LfL missed the irony of her own statement it would appear