PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on January 22, 2016, 08:06:16 AM
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination)
In a country with more than 300 million people, it is remarkable how obsessed the media have become with just one—Donald Trump. What is even more remarkable is that, after seven years of repeated disasters, both domestically and internationally, under a glib egomaniac in the White House, so many potential voters are turning to another glib egomaniac to be his successor.
-
Yes, the National Review and the mainstream Republicans are against Trump, but they are against Ted Cruz more.
-
I've printed this out and will read it at home tonight. (31 pages!)
But I get it. It seems to me that the Trump fanatics are forgetting about conservatism because they are so excited about the sound bites that they hear from him. I get that excitement, but I haven't forgotten about conservative principles.
Ted Cruz raised the issue of where was Trump when conservatives were fighting the good fights on gun control, amnesty, sequester, and constitutional Constitutional overreach. He was AWOL. Absent Without Leave.
I was neutral about Trump until recently. His birther and other Alynsky-like attacks on Cruz are over the top, and what we would expect to see from the DNC.
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
-
If it comes to Trump versus Hillary or Bernie, I'm voting for Trump, gladly. That said, I like Cruz.
-
I'll die if it's Trump v. Hillary.
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
May I contribute to your airfare?
-
I'll die if it's Trump v. Hillary.
So will Hillary........
-
I'll die if it's Trump v. Hillary.
What charity should we donate to in lieu of flowers?
-
I'll die if it's Trump v. Hillary.
What charity should we donate to in lieu of flowers?
Jeb!
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
I might actually get drunk if it's H vs Trump. Always have wondered what it feels like to semi-lose consciousness.
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
I might actually get drunk if it's H vs Trump. Always have wondered what it feels like to semi-lose consciousness.
I'll join you, Becky. I'll bring the bourbon!
-
I might actually get drunk if it's H vs Trump. Always have wondered what it feels like to semi-lose consciousness.
why? do you want to see what it's like to be an obama supporter?
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
Oh gawd... I heard that nonsense so much back in the Bush days around here. "If Bush wins, I'm going to pack up and leave!" I only know one person who did that and he wasn't US Citizen. He is Austrian and married a US citizen. When Bush won the second time, they packed up and moved to Austria. He's back now and came back when Bush was still in office. He was reminded why he left in the first place.
The truth is, whoever is president doesn't affect our personal lives very much. Very much by design, the president doesn't get to be king and dictator although many have thought they could. Presidents do have long term effects on the country that eventually does effect our lives though, so the office is important, just not enough to pack your bags and run.
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
If I were to threaten that, I guess I'd be a re-pat.
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
If I were to threaten that, I guess I'd be a re-pat.
Unless you "ex-patted" to somewhere besides Canada.
Why would you leave a country swirling down the socialist drain to go back to another socialist country?
I would threaten to leave if Hillary or Bernie win, but even with them in charge, this is still the best place to be.
Except for short vacations.
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
If I were to threaten that, I guess I'd be a re-pat.
Unless you "ex-patted" to somewhere besides Canada.
Why would you leave a country swirling down the socialist drain to go back to another socialist country?
I would threaten to leave if Hillary or Bernie win, but even with them in charge, this is still the best place to be.
Except for short vacations.
Yeah, the election of Prime Minister Zoolander has narrowed my options of repatriating.
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
If I were to threaten that, I guess I'd be a re-pat.
I was re-patted by TSA in Cleveland on Thursday, and I didn't enjoy it one bit. I want to come back to the United States of America that doesn't treat her citizens like fucking criminals for theatrical purposes.
-
Boy, the long knives are out for sure.
The problem is that the elites still don't understand the nature of this voter rebellion, what National Review did will only further inflame the rabble, Trump will get stronger support, I predict, as a result of this hatchet job.
Speaking for myself, I know Trump is not a bona-fide conservative, I know he has 'matured' [read that flip-flopped] on several items of consequence which begs will he do it again? And as I have repeatedly said, I do not support his campaign with dollars or time and am not committed to voting for him. I am not a primary voter and so my feelings on the matter are moot at this point.
BUT, everybody has a big but let me tell you about mine. Trump's staying power in the poll's is because he is actually giving voice to concerns being expressed by voters on all sides of the spectrum - I personally see a huge difference though between his widely appealing popularism, and Obama's cult-of-personality. Comparing what was being said and written about Obama in the lead up to the '08 campaign, his supporters could not articulate the reason for their support hence the ready cut to the canard of 'racism' when anyone dared to criticize or oppose ir point out the glaring issues with his candidacy.
'I like what he says' or 'I like how he says it' IS a legitimate reason for people to select a candidate, we are still ostensibly free to vote our conscience and that means it can/should be for whatever reasoning we feel motivated by.
I am still not convinced that Trump will be the candidate, but when the supposed opposition party is spending nearly all of it's precious time and political capital (with the very people it needs to show up to win the election in the first place) on attacking the two leading candidates IN ITS OWN PARTY, rather than on the colossal failures of the current administration and tying them to the very people who architected and rolled them out, there is something wrong.
I have believed for some time that the Republican Party needed a cathartic intervention, much like the Reagan Revolution - but I held out little hope that it would actually happen, until now. Regardless of whether he ends up being the candidate or not, my sincere hope is that Trump's participation continues to focus on issues important to we the people in such a way as they becaome actual planks with actual plans and actual follow-through rather than the election cycle pandering and subsequent 'talk to the hand' ignoring by the Party, once elected, that we have been subjected to for the past 2-3 decades.
All my own opinion of course, your mileage may vary, blah blah blah.
'Gimp
-
The thing is, the "establishment" is coalescing around Trump rapidly. He's made peace with them and promised them they'll continue to wield power.
-
The thing is, the "establishment" is coalescing around Trump rapidly. He's made peace with them and promised them they'll continue to wield power.
I hope not.... In fact I hope he uses his growing power to tell them to go straight to hell...figuratively speaking of course... he has moved the needle on a number of issues, and I hope he doesn't stop now.
-
The thing is, the "establishment" is coalescing around Trump rapidly. He's made peace with them and promised them they'll continue to wield power.
Probably somebody finally told him how our government works. It must be a huge disappointment to him. He has to work with Congress. He can't make laws on his own.
To my knowledge there is no Trump party with loyal Trump Party candidates running for the House and the Senate. He promised them power because he has no choice in the matter. They do have power and even though he can impede their power, he can't take it from them, but they can over ride him if need be.
-
Probably somebody finally told him how our government works. It must be a huge disappointment to him. He has to work with Congress. He can't make laws on his own.
To my knowledge there is no Trump party with loyal Trump Party candidates running for the House and the Senate. He promised them power because he has no choice in the matter. They do have power and even though he can impede their power, he can't take it from them, but they can over ride him if need be.
How's that been working out so far? A radical left wing President, and a Congress and Senate led by Republicans. Yet the Democrats are in total control. :o
-
Probably somebody finally told him how our government works. It must be a huge disappointment to him. He has to work with Congress. He can't make laws on his own.
Still waiting for Obama to get that message.
-
Boy, the long knives are out for sure.
The problem is that the elites still don't understand the nature of this voter rebellion, what National Review did will only further inflame the rabble, Trump will get stronger support, I predict, as a result of this hatchet job.
Speaking for myself, I know Trump is not a bona-fide conservative, I know he has 'matured' [read that flip-flopped] on several items of consequence which begs will he do it again? And as I have repeatedly said, I do not support his campaign with dollars or time and am not committed to voting for him. I am not a primary voter and so my feelings on the matter are moot at this point.
BUT, everybody has a big but let me tell you about mine. Trump's staying power in the poll's is because he is actually giving voice to concerns being expressed by voters on all sides of the spectrum - I personally see a huge difference though between his widely appealing popularism, and Obama's cult-of-personality. Comparing what was being said and written about Obama in the lead up to the '08 campaign, his supporters could not articulate the reason for their support hence the ready cut to the canard of 'racism' when anyone dared to criticize or oppose ir point out the glaring issues with his candidacy.
'I like what he says' or 'I like how he says it' IS a legitimate reason for people to select a candidate, we are still ostensibly free to vote our conscience and that means it can/should be for whatever reasoning we feel motivated by.
I am still not convinced that Trump will be the candidate, but when the supposed opposition party is spending nearly all of it's precious time and political capital (with the very people it needs to show up to win the election in the first place) on attacking the two leading candidates IN ITS OWN PARTY, rather than on the colossal failures of the current administration and tying them to the very people who architected and rolled them out, there is something wrong.
I have believed for some time that the Republican Party needed a cathartic intervention, much like the Reagan Revolution - but I held out little hope that it would actually happen, until now. Regardless of whether he ends up being the candidate or not, my sincere hope is that Trump's participation continues to focus on issues important to we the people in such a way as they becaome actual planks with actual plans and actual follow-through rather than the election cycle pandering and subsequent 'talk to the hand' ignoring by the Party, once elected, that we have been subjected to for the past 2-3 decades.
All my own opinion of course, your mileage may vary, blah blah blah.
'Gimp
Good write up. However, he's really pissed me off and many others as well with his Alinskyite attacks on Cruz with this birther/loan crap. Bush league.
-
How's that been working out so far? A radical left wing President, and a Congress and Senate led by Republicans. Yet the Democrats are in total control. :o
Trust me, the Democrats are not "in total control". If they were the social programs would be piling up all over the place and you would have 120 days to turn in your guns. We have what's called stalemate. Nothing is happening and our ultra lame, lame duck president is using his executive powers in hopes that a Democrat will win in November and that the courts will rule his moves constitutional.
Also I would not be calling Obama a "radical". If he were, he would be calling for the government take over of private enterprise and the means of production. He would be playing Robin Hood by force. Basically nearly everyone would be shocked and he would likely be arrested. No, he is just a regular ol' left wing politician. He ain't the devil.
The problem with our government isn't the president. It isn't the congress. It's the people of the United States. We are divided. We no longer have common goals, or even in some cases, common values. To my knowledge, the country has never been like this before.
It will take the right orator with a lot of charisma and a fantastic plan to bring the people back together and move forward with that plan. Sadly this person has yet to arise and nobody running for president this November is this person.
-
Trust me, the Democrats are not "in total control". If they were the social programs would be piling up all over the place and you would have 120 days to turn in your guns. We have what's called stalemate. Nothing is happening and our ultra lame, lame duck president is using his executive powers in hopes that a Democrat will win in November and that the courts will rule his moves constitutional.
Also I would not be calling Obama a "radical". If he were, he would be calling for the government take over of private enterprise and the means of production. He would be playing Robin Hood by force. Basically nearly everyone would be shocked and he would likely be arrested. No, he is just a regular ol' left wing politician. He ain't the devil.
The problem with our government isn't the president. It isn't the congress. It's the people of the United States. We are divided. We no longer have common goals, or even in some cases, common values. To my knowledge, the country has never been like this before.
It will take the right orator with a lot of charisma and a fantastic plan to bring the people back together and move forward with that plan. Sadly this person has yet to arise and nobody running for president this November is this person.
Don't think the Dems are in total control? Please show some Republican legislation that has passed. The budget was just approved (with Paul Ryan taking the lead) and handed Obama and the left everything they wanted, and more. McConnell is powerless having to let Harry Reid keep calling the shots. Obama rules via "executive order" and goes unchecked by Congress (Republican majority, no less)
But you are right, Congress is one huge fucked up mess. They ALL need to go in November, lock, stock and barrel.
-
The Senate needs to STOP confirming Obama's JUDGES (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/19/republican-led-senate-confirms-obama-judge-who-once-attacked-property-rights-and-reagan/).
-
The Senate needs to STOP confirming Obama's JUDGES (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/19/republican-led-senate-confirms-obama-judge-who-once-attacked-property-rights-and-reagan/).
Harry Reid controls the senate while McConnell watches.
-
But you are right, Congress is one huge fucked up mess. They ALL need to go in November, lock, stock and barrel.
Sure, but the problem is, who is stepping up to replace them?? Pretty much the same ol' same ol'.
-
They ALL need to go in November, lock, stock and barrel.
I would like to, for the first time on PS, but for the umpteenth time overall, put in my plug for the "No running for office while holding office" version of term limits.
Basically, nobody would be permitted to run for any office while they held office. A person is elected to an office, say Congresscritter, for a defined term, in this case 2 years. They are elected to execute the duties of that office. They are NOT elected to do fundraising, or to run for re-election, or election to some higher office. Once the person is out of office, they're free to run for their former office again, or for some other office, but not until their term has expired.
-
I would like to, for the first time on PS, but for the umpteenth time overall, put in my plug for the "No running for office while holding office" version of term limits.
I don't like term limits. Term limits would mean only 4 years of Reagan.
We already have term limits, it is called an election. This version of term limits was used in 1994, 2010, and 2012 and 2014 to change the face of Congress.
-
I don't like term limits. Term limits would mean only 4 years of Reagan.
We already have term limits, it is called an election. This version of term limits was used in 1994, 2010, and 2012 and 2014 to change the face of Congress.
I used to be in your camp, but the "citizen politician" has been usurped by the "career politician" so much so that challengers to incumbents have very little chance of succeeding, not because of ideas, but because of power and influence.
In turn, with every reelection politicians accumulate more power and more control, to the point that they are simply part of the Washington Cartel, with little to no accountability to the people of their district or state. More power and influence means more taxpayers' money to throw around, buying even more power.
I prefer to use the Article V Convention of the States to set specific term limits for the House, the Senate, and the Judiciary. Lifetime appointments are nuts.
-
I used to be in your camp, but the "citizen politician" has been usurped by the "career politician" so much so that challengers to incumbents have very little chance of succeeding, not because of ideas, but because of power and influence.
In turn, with every reelection politicians accumulate more power and more control, to the point that they are simply part of the Washington Cartel, with little to no accountability to the people of their district or state. More power and influence means more taxpayers' money to throw around, buying even more power.
I prefer to use the Article V Convention of the States to set specific term limits for the House, the Senate, and the Judiciary. Lifetime appointments are nuts.
I still believe the foundational issue is all the policy wonks. staffers and apparatchiks - they write the laws and white papers and stuff and they are the handlers and corruptors of the occasional Mr. Smith's who make it to Washington.
No way for we the people to kick all of those people out.
'Gimp
-
I used to be in your camp, but the "citizen politician" has been usurped by the "career politician" so much so that challengers to incumbents have very little chance of succeeding, not because of ideas, but because of power and influence.
Joni Ernst in Iowa would disagree. Mia Love in Utah. And, quite a few others. Sure, it is hard, but it is possible.
I don't want to term limit them, but if they screw up, we run someone new.
-
I don't like term limits. Term limits would mean only 4 years of Reagan.
We already have term limits, it is called an election. This version of term limits was used in 1994, 2010, and 2012 and 2014 to change the face of Congress.
Well the POTUS has a TERM LIMIT of two terms. So do many Governors. Why can't we do that in Congress. Elections don't work as term limits because incumbents have HUGE advantages.
-
Sure, but the problem is, who is stepping up to replace them?? Pretty much the same ol' same ol'.
I remember a poll once taken "Do you think we should replace everyone in Congress?" The answer was 90%+ "yes".
The second question was "How do you feel about your congressman?" The answer was "He's doing a good job", 90%+.
Voter apathy, it's the best deal for career politicians.
-
Joni Ernst in Iowa would disagree. Mia Love in Utah. And, quite a few others. Sure, it is hard, but it is possible.
I don't want to term limit them, but if they screw up, we run someone new.
I believe Joni Ernst won a seat vacated by the retirement of LONGTIME incumbent Tom Harken. I'm not sure about Mia Love.
-
I don't like term limits. Term limits would mean only 4 years of Reagan.
We already have term limits, it is called an election. This version of term limits was used in 1994, 2010, and 2012 and 2014 to change the face of Congress.
What I'm talking about wouldn't really be a "term limit" per se. It's just saying if you want to run for office, do it while not holding office.
You could run for 20 terms as President, just not consecutively.
-
What I'm talking about wouldn't really be a "term limit" per se. It's just saying if you want to run for office, do it while not holding office.
You could run for 20 terms as President, just not consecutively.
how about a slight modification: you can only run during the three months prior to the election. No campaigning prior to that. (challengers can announce and run as early as they want)
-
how about a slight modification: you can only run during the three months prior to the election. No campaigning prior to that. (challengers can announce and run as early as they want)
Nope.
If you're elected to a 2 year term, then you should serve out that 2 years doing the job. Your 3 months is basically 1/8 of a Congresscritter's entire term of office that they just flush. Multiply that by 435 of them all doing the same thing.
-
Nope.
If you're elected to a 2 year term, then you should serve out that 2 years doing the job. Your 3 months is basically 1/8 of a Congresscritter's entire term of office that they just flush. Multiply that by 435 of them all doing the same thing.
For the congress critters, how about only campaigning when Congress is in recess.
Double bonus: They might be in recess longer, meaning less opportunity for them to pass stupid laws.
-
We don't need a full time Congress. It needs to be limited and part time.
-
I like Cruz best, and will probably vote for Cruz. That said, if Trump gets the nod, I will not only vote for him, but will probably do some work for him too. Trump may not be a hard right conservative, but I think he is more conservative than Ryan, Mcconnell, Mccain and most of the other republicans. I think Trump will have the ability to bitch slap the wussies in there now and get them to stand up against the progressive disaster that has been thrust upon us for the last 9 years. So yes, I'll vote for Trump gladly if he is the nominee.
-
I like Cruz best, and will probably vote for Cruz. That said, if Trump gets the nod, I will not only vote for him, but will probably do some work for him too. Trump may not be a hard right conservative, but I think he is more conservative than Ryan, Mcconnell, Mccain and most of the other republicans. I think Trump will have the ability to bitch slap the wussies in there now and get them to stand up against the progressive disaster that has been thrust upon us for the last 9 years. So yes, I'll vote for Trump gladly if he is the nominee.
Paul, I agree and do like Trump's ability to turn the discussion to his point of view. He has done a remarkable job of making the 2016 about issues that the public sees as relevant, not what the "Parties" think we should be discussing. He single handedly has framed the issues in this election. That being said, I have a very hard time getting past the outrageous narcism. We have lived through nearly 8 years of a Presidency led by the biggest narcissist I have ever seen in a public office. The man has forever damaged the country with his governing against the will of the people.... Having another very similar personality in the WH for the next 4-8 years is not a pleasant thought, even if he has "Team R" on his lapel. I want a far weaker executive branch, and a far weaker federal government for that matter. Someone that gets the concept of Liberty and adheres to our founding. I fear Mr Trump understands neither.
As usual, it will likely come down to the lesser of two evils, and if that is between Hillary and Trump....it's not even a choice. It's sad that we can't find a true leader in a population of more than 325 million people.
-
It's sad that we can't find a true leader in a population of more than 325 million people.
Can't get the job without being connected. Can't be connected without being in someone's pocket.
-
So will Hillary........
Please do.
-
http://www.columbiatribune.com/opinion/darkow_cartoons/john-darkow-on-donald-trump-s-popularity/image_0bb75efa-e748-5e9a-a90d-4cd902e25a1f.html
-
We don't need a full time Congress. It needs to be limited and part time.
It already is part time.
Congress critters are prohibited from making fundraising calls from their government office. So the all go across the street to an office supplied by their party. They are generally "encouraged" (ie, required) to make cold calls asking for funds for 4 hours a day. That is 4 hours a day they are not working for us.
Here is a good read on it, and about one suggestion that I like:
http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20160124/columns/160129774
-
I used to be in your camp, but the "citizen politician" has been usurped by the "career politician" so much so that challengers to incumbents have very little chance of succeeding, not because of ideas, but because of power and influence.
In turn, with every reelection politicians accumulate more power and more control, to the point that they are simply part of the Washington Cartel, with little to no accountability to the people of their district or state. More power and influence means more taxpayers' money to throw around, buying even more power.
I prefer to use the Article V Convention of the States to set specific term limits for the House, the Senate, and the Judiciary. Lifetime appointments are nuts.
Agree.
-
Nothing in the Constitution says being a Senator or Representative is a full time job. I'm pretty sure that early on it was not viewed as full time. We'd be much better served if they were only in town long enough to address the budget and a few pressing things and not just hanging around to figure out what stupid piece of legislation that can put forth.
One of the biggest problems is the size of Congressional staffs now.
-
It already is part time.
Congress critters are prohibited from making fundraising calls from their government office. So the all go across the street to an office supplied by their party. They are generally "encouraged" (ie, required) to make cold calls asking for funds for 4 hours a day. That is 4 hours a day they are not working for us.
Here is a good read on it, and about one suggestion that I like:
http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20160124/columns/160129774
I like it.
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
hmmmmm
-
If Trump wins I'm becoming an Ex-pat.
That would take courage and integrity...
-
Lol,come on guys he's liberal, just because he says something, doesn't mean he means it.
-
It already is part time.
Congress critters are prohibited from making fundraising calls from their government office. So the all go across the street to an office supplied by their party. They are generally "encouraged" (ie, required) to make cold calls asking for funds for 4 hours a day. That is 4 hours a day they are not working for us.
Here is a good read on it, and about one suggestion that I like:
http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20160124/columns/160129774
Are you that naïve? These are FULL TIME CAREER politicians, and they get RICH in office.
-
Are you that naïve? These are FULL TIME CAREER politicians, and they get RICH in office.
What is your definition of "full time"??
I do agree they get rich in office though.