PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on May 20, 2016, 05:00:49 AM
-
Compare this list to any that Hillary might propose:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-releases-list-of-names-of-potential-united-states-supreme-c
(for those that say Trump never mentions the Constitution)
. This list was compiled, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.
-
Compare this list to any that Hillary might propose:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-releases-list-of-names-of-potential-united-states-supreme-c
(for those that say Trump never mentions the Constitution)
While I'm sure Trump did the research and write the press release himself :rolleyes: hey, there's a first for everything.
I'm still waiting for a single example of Trump using the words "freedom" or "liberty" during this campaign.
-
While I'm sure Trump did the research and write the press release himself :rolleyes: hey, there's a first for everything.
I'm still waiting for a single example of Trump using the words "freedom" or "liberty" during this campaign.
I suppose the appointment of a conservative justice pales in comparison to his word usage count.
Are you saying that by not using the words "freedom" or "liberty" that proves he does not want or believe in those things? Or are you merely being pedantic and repeating a talking points memo.
And if he did stand up and proclaim his devotion to those concepts, wouldn't you just call him a liar anyway?
-
While I'm sure Trump did the research and write the press release himself :rolleyes: hey, there's a first for everything.
But yet any time someone in his company or campaign makes a mistake you are quick to point out that obviously Trump hired that person himself, thus showing incompetence.
The Trump campaign acknowledged he sought out the conservatives to help him formulate a list, yet that still dissatisfied you. Do you honestly believe any President makes a SC Justice pick based upon his own research or that he gets advice on these picks?
I'm still waiting for a single example of Trump using the words "freedom" or "liberty" during this campaign.
And if he did exactly that today in a speech, you would simply raise the bar, again.
-
I'm glad to see he released the list. This is the list I said I was waiting for and I'll have to spend some time reviewing it. I remain skeptical of his sincerity of this list because of his constant flip flopping on issues. In other words, I'm not convinced that he will stick to this list as a guide if he's elected instead of changing it to more liberal leaning people. All that being said, I'm glad to see he mentioned the Constitution in his statement a few times. I see this as an attempt by him to reach out to the conservatives to try and win their support and I would like to see more moves like this.
-
I remain skeptical of his sincerity of this list because of his constant flip flopping on issues.
You mean like when, right after releasing the list, he said "But I could pick other people too" (paraphrase).
The list is simple pandering.
-
You mean like when, right after releasing the list, he said "But I could pick other people too" (paraphrase).
The list is simple pandering.
Perhaps. But it is an election year so all candidates trying to get elected are going to pander to some extend.
Some call it pandering, some call it marketing. It's all an attempt to win votes.
-
You mean like when, right after releasing the list, he said "But I could pick other people too" (paraphrase).
The list is simple pandering.
So were you under the impression that that list is a lock, and that he will never be able to appoint someone not on the list?
Admit it. If he says anything, or takes any position that you disagree with, you will believe him 100% and say that is proof of something.
But if he says anything you do agree with, you will say he is just lying.
Ok, if you want to point out my hypocrisy, it is ok if you tell me I am the same way about Obama or Hillary. I don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths.
-
I suppose the appointment of a conservative justice pales in comparison to his word usage count.
Are you saying that by not using the words "freedom" or "liberty" that proves he does not want or believe in those things? Or are you merely being pedantic and repeating a talking points memo.
And if he did stand up and proclaim his devotion to those concepts, wouldn't you just call him a liar anyway?
Yes, I am absolutely saying that I don't believe that he wants or believes in freedom or Liberty. If you'd listen to what he says, such as how the government should decide if a private citizen should give up his property to another private citizen (he's a BIG Kelo v City of New London fan), how citizens shouldn't "be allowed" to say things he believes is untrue, and other despotic tendencies, it must be clear that he doesn't believe in individual liberty or freedom, just HIS version of what the State should allow with respect to liberty or freedom.
And I think we've debated long enough that you should know that I write my own talking points, so you should knock that shit off.
As for your last paragraph, let me know when he "proclaims devotion to this concepts" and I'll let you know how I feel. He hasn't done so yet, and has given no indication that he ever would.
Individual freedom and liberty are an anathema to big government statists and despots.
-
And if he did exactly that today in a speech, you would simply raise the bar, again.
Well, he hasn't, and has given no indication that he ever will, so it's a moot point.
-
Well, he hasn't, and has given no indication that he ever will, so it's a moot point.
The always moving goal post........
Like I keep saying, there is very little difference between a far right ideologue and a far left ideologue.
-
The always moving goal post........
Like I keep saying, there is very little difference between a far right ideologue and a far left ideologue.
What moved? I've been asking if he had ever used these terms in this campaign ever since, well, the beginning of his campaign. And I either get NO response, or this type of nonsensical response from you.
You saying "If he did exactly that" - which he has not - does not equal Trump ACTUALLY use these terms.
Who's moving the goalposts?
I understand that it's difficult to defend Trump all the time but moronic responses like this don't help you build his case.
-
What moved? I've been asking if he had ever used these terms in this campaign ever since, well, the beginning of his campaign. And I either get NO response, or this type of nonsensical response from you.
You saying "If he did exactly that" - which he has not - does not equal Trump ACTUALLY use these terms.
Who's moving the goalposts?
I understand that it's difficult to defend Trump all the time but moronic responses like this don't help you build his case.
Your post is correct. You have been consistent on this.
But as to moronic responses not helping, neither do moronic charges and make believe scenarios make the case that Trump is not qualified.
My position has not changed either. From the very beginning of this campaign, I have said that any one of the R candidates would be better than Hillary. One by one, my favorite candidates dropped out until we were left with Trump. He may be the least acceptable of the original R candidates, but he is still better than Hillary. And that is the argument I stand on. My reasons have been articulated over and over.
As for you anti-Trump people, you have repeatedly stated your very real reasons for not liking him, but then will often go on to making up ridiculous scenarios, or posting ridiculous videos worthy of Saturday Night Live that show extreme examples of your worst nightmares. That stupid video about the old guy that was voting for Trump because he is ANGRY was a good example. Yes, it was funny. But it was still moronic and a misrepresentation of Trump supporters.
-
Your post is correct. You have been consistent on this.
But as to moronic responses not helping, neither do moronic charges and make believe scenarios make the case that Trump is not qualified.
My position has not changed either. From the very beginning of this campaign, I have said that any one of the R candidates would be better than Hillary. One by one, my favorite candidates dropped out until we were left with Trump. He may be the least acceptable of the original R candidates, but he is still better than Hillary. And that is the argument I stand on. My reasons have been articulated over and over.
As for you anti-Trump people, you have repeatedly stated your very real reasons for not liking him, but then will often go on to making up ridiculous scenarios, or posting ridiculous videos worthy of Saturday Night Live that show extreme examples of your worst nightmares. That stupid video about the old guy that was voting for Trump because he is ANGRY was a good example. Yes, it was funny. But it was still moronic and a misrepresentation of Trump supporters.
Well I didn't post that video, nor do I think I've made up ridiculous scenarios. Asking if Trump has used "freedom" and "liberty" in a single speech or debate is not asking much for a POTUS candidate in my book. Nor is using his own words that he does say to implicate himself as a liberal.
Krauthammer wrote an article recently asking rhetorically how, after 8 years of Obama, did we find ourselves ending up with the 3 most liberal candidates running for POTUS.
-
I'm still waiting for a single example of Trump using the words "freedom" or "liberty" during this campaign.
So you're a buzzword conservative. How Pavlovian of you. That's sweet.
-
Well I didn't post that video, nor do I think I've made up ridiculous scenarios. Asking if Trump has used "freedom" and "liberty" in a single speech or debate is not asking much for a POTUS candidate in my book. Nor is using his own words that he does say to implicate himself as a liberal.
Krauthammer wrote an article recently asking rhetorically how, after 8 years of Obama, did we find ourselves ending up with the 3 most liberal candidates running for POTUS.
When you first started saying that Trump has not used the words "liberty" or "freedom" in his speeches, I was wondering how you deduced that, so I searched for examples of him using those words.
I quickly gave up the search because all of the results were of various biased pundits saying the same thing: "trump has never used . . ." those words. That was why I said those words came from "talking points". And it can be difficult to disprove a negative without having access to the transcripts of every speech he has ever made.
But I guess it is possible that you were the first one that recognized those omissions and everyone else is parroting you. And honestly, that wouldn't surprise me because I do happen to believe that you are more observant and informed than most of those biased pundits.
-
Krauthammer wrote an article recently asking rhetorically how, after 8 years of Obama, did we find ourselves ending up with the 3 most liberal candidates running for POTUS.
How? After years of lies by both parties have got us to this point. Both parties are broken and are being run by people with agendas, and not necessarily good ones.
-
What moved? I've been asking if he had ever used these terms in this campaign ever since, well, the beginning of his campaign. And I either get NO response, or this type of nonsensical response from you.
You saying "If he did exactly that" - which he has not - does not equal Trump ACTUALLY use these terms.
Who's moving the goalposts?
I understand that it's difficult to defend Trump all the time but moronic responses like this don't help you build his case.
I'm not building a case. From the onset all I've ever claimed is come the nomination I will support whoever gets the republican nomination, period. As to who you would vote for or support? I could care less.
The moving goal post statement is in reference of how you want Trump to give a speech with very specific wording. Be honest, even if he gave a speech with the exact wording you demand, the next thing from you would be "well he really doesn't mean it!". Nothing he will say or do will satisfy you.
Don't worry, maybe your icon Bill Kristol will find someone to run third party.
-
So you're a buzzword conservative. How Pavlovian of you. That's sweet.
Aren't you clever.
Did you ever take an undergrad psychology course? Pavlov was able to get a result out of rats by providing a regular reward, called conditioning. The difference between me and Pavlov was that he got results. I continue to get zilch.
I don't think being Pavlovian is what you think it is. But thanks for playing.
-
When you first started saying that Trump has not used the words "liberty" or "freedom" in his speeches, I was wondering how you deduced that, so I searched for examples of him using those words.
I quickly gave up the search because all of the results were of various biased pundits saying the same thing: "trump has never used . . ." those words. That was why I said those words came from "talking points". And it can be difficult to disprove a negative without having access to the transcripts of every speech he has ever made.
But I guess it is possible that you were the first one that recognized those omissions and everyone else is parroting you. And honestly, that wouldn't surprise me because I do happen to believe that you are more observant and informed than most of those biased pundits.
Well boy, you got me there. I just did the same search, and turned up one National Review article from September 10, 2015 from Jim Geraghty. Then nothing until March 7, 2916 on some obscure website, and of course Brad Thor stole my question when he wrote about it on May 10, 2016.
Those must be the longest lasting talking points EVER.
OR, alternatively, it could be a very important question to someone such as me who is a strong Constitutionalist and Federalist, and questions how a Republican POTUS candidate can't muster up the strength and knowledge to speak to why our country was founded. Unless he just doesn't believe those things that is.
You pick.
-
It is fun to see all these conservative pundits who think they wield so much power behind the scenes and now have their heads spinning in their shoulders because they wield nothing. Elitist pricks trying to subvert the very system they put together. I still remember all the hoopla out of the gate at the first debate when everyone was asked to pinky swear and when Trump wouldn't you'd have thought the world was coming to an end.
-
I don't think being Pavlovian is what you think it is. But thanks for playing.
My guess is that he was implying that you were conditioned so that the words "freedom" and "liberty" would make you "salivate" in response to them.
In a good way, of course!
But then again, I'm attempting to decipher Jaybird180 - not the easiest thing to do!
-
You guys do realize that Trump admits he says, or "proposes" whatever it takes to get support and ultimately elected and that he acknowledges that he will then compromise and we will get something less. I personally take his list of SCOTUS nominees with a grain of salt. Forget whatever he says, look at the man and what he has done in the past and how he has done it. That's all that matters at this point.
It is unbelievable to me that we are now faced with Trump vs. Clinton. I am simply dumfounded and depressed about the state of our country.
-
You guys do realize that Trump admits he says, or "proposes" whatever it takes to get support and ultimately elected and that he acknowledges that he will then compromise and we will get something less. I personally take his list of SCOTUS nominees with a grain of salt. Forget whatever he says, look at the man and what he has done in the past and how he has done it. That's all that matters at this point.
It is unbelievable to me that we are now faced with Trump vs. Clinton. I am simply dumfounded and depressed about the state of our country.
You and me both.
-
You guys do realize that Trump admits he says, or "proposes" whatever it takes to get support and ultimately elected and that he acknowledges that he will then compromise and we will get something less.
The only difference between this and every other politician that has ever run for office is that Trump is telling the truth. Name one other politician that went on to win, AND fulfill all of their promises. He is merely acknowledging that when the rubber hits the road, plans will of necessity, change.
All good generals understand that "No Battle Plan Survives Contact With the Enemy"!
-
The only difference between this and every other politician that has ever run for office is that Trump is telling the truth. Name one other politician that went on to win, AND fulfill all of their promises. He is merely acknowledging that when the rubber hits the road, plans will of necessity, change.
All good generals understand that "No Battle Plan Survives Contact With the Enemy"!
I think it's more likely that he's giving himself an out so when he nominates someone who isn't actually conservative or he wants a law that isn't anywhere near the principles he discussed during the campaign, he can say that he told everyone ahead of time that things may have to change.
-
I think it's more likely that he's giving himself an out so when he nominates someone who isn't actually conservative or he wants a law that isn't anywhere near the principles he discussed during the campaign, he can say that he told everyone ahead of time that things may have to change.
It was just a few weeks ago that everyone was saying that if Trump got the GOP nomination, he would lose badly to Clinton, and even worse, hurt the downstream Republican ticket.
Now that it looks like he could win, he would not be hurting the downstream ticket as badly. In which case the Rs will keep control of Congress. In that circumstance, how is he going to get a liberal judge confirmed?
Of course though, with enough of the doomsday predictions, they could turn out to be self-fulfilling.
-
It was just a few weeks ago that everyone was saying that if Trump got the GOP nomination, he would lose badly to Clinton, and even worse, hurt the downstream Republican ticket.
If he wins, he will likely have damaged the conservative movement in the country for years to come.
Now that it looks like he could win, he would not be hurting the downstream ticket as badly. In which case the Rs will keep control of Congress. In that circumstance, how is he going to get a liberal judge confirmed?
Of course though, with enough of the doomsday predictions, they could turn out to be self-fulfilling.
There are several reasons why Trump can likely get a nominee for just about any position through:
1. When a new president takes office there is usually a spirit of cooperation that allows the president to get his picks (generally cabinet nominations) approved by the Senate and this could very well extend to a SCOTUS nomination as well.
2. The Republicans don't want to be seen as fighting their own party's newly elected president so early on. The president's party typically loses seats during the mid-terms anyway so Republicans aren't likely going to want to do a lot of damage to themselves on day 1 of a Trump presidency.
3. The Republicans are the Republicans. They won't stand up to the Democrats in the House or Senate already, they likely won't stand up to their own party's president either.
-
If he wins, he will likely have damaged the conservative movement in the country for years to come.
How has Trump damaged the conservative movement? Think about that for a moment.
The GOP has that distinction, and only they are the blame for not being able to promote their agenda. The GOP has had years of broken promises and out right lies to the American voter, yet still demands loyalty. Know how the GOP says "fuck you,"?
"Trust us".
The ideologues are trying every way possible to blame Trump and blame the voters for their failures when it is really them that have failed, and failed miserably.
-
How has Trump damaged the conservative movement? Think about that for a moment.
The GOP has that distinction, and only they are the blame for not being able to promote their agenda. The GOP has had years of broken promises and out right lies to the American voter, yet still demands loyalty. Know how the GOP says "fuck you,"?
"Trust us".
The ideologues are trying every way possible to blame Trump and blame the voters for their failures when it is really them that have failed, and failed miserably.
Simple. He's not a conservative and now he's the presumptive GOP nominee. The GOP isn't necessarily conservative anymore, either. The two aren't the same. There are conservatives within the GOP but by and large the GOP is now the "establishment" and are big government Republicans. As long as they maintain their power and money, they'll continue on the path they're on, which isn't a conservative one.
Conservatives want a conservative to be president and that's not Trump. Before you start saying that conservatives are ideologues and won't ever accept someone who isn't 100% pure and so on and so forth, don't. Conservatives will compromise on a lot of issues but they will not accept compromise on the Constitution and neither should anyone else, yourself included.
I agree that the GOP has failed in many ways and they only have themselves to blame for the rise of Trump. But if you want someone who will actually care about the Constitution and government limiting provisions contained within it, Trump is not the guy (neither is Clinton, before that gets thrown out there).
If Trump loses, it will not be the fault of the voters, it will be Trump's fault.
-
Simple. He's not a conservative and now he's the presumptive GOP nominee. The GOP isn't necessarily conservative anymore, either. The two aren't the same. There are conservatives within the GOP but by and large the GOP is now the "establishment" and are big government Republicans. As long as they maintain their power and money, they'll continue on the path they're on, which isn't a conservative one.
Conservatives want a conservative to be president and that's not Trump. Before you start saying that conservatives are ideologues and won't ever accept someone who isn't 100% pure and so on and so forth, don't. Conservatives will compromise on a lot of issues but they will not accept compromise on the Constitution and neither should anyone else, yourself included.
I agree that the GOP has failed in many ways and they only have themselves to blame for the rise of Trump. But if you want someone who will actually care about the Constitution and government limiting provisions contained within it, Trump is not the guy (neither is Clinton, before that gets thrown out there).
If Trump loses, it will not be the fault of the voters, it will be Trump's fault.
The hard line conservatives (ideologues) are a very small minority of the GOP but view themselves as the majority.
Here's the problem you are not seeing. While "conservatives" want a conservative politician to run as thei nominee, it's not going to happen. The reason why is not Trump. The reason why is years of failed promises and out right lies and deception. The conservative movement has done itself in by aligning with politicians who only have themselves and the donor class to serve while telling the voters to fuck off.
Years of hearing the RNC talk about how they have to reach out to voters and be more inclusive, but yet when those voters show up they scorn them. How many so called conservative politicians give speeches about "freedom" and "liberty" only to have a voting record to show anything but? Hell, just look at the poster boy of the RNC, Paul Ryan, who is supposedly a "conservative", but then look at his voting record and then look at what he has done since becoming the Speaker. Take a look at Mitch McConnell. Just go down the list of current Republicans now serving. The actual "conservatives are far and few between.
The GOP has screwed the pooch and shit on voters for too long and now it's coming back to haunt them and they have no one to blame but themselves.
-
The hard line conservatives (ideologues) are a very small minority of the GOP but view themselves as the majority.
I have no idea where you're getting this from, it doesn't even make sense.
Here's the problem you are not seeing. While "conservatives" want a conservative politician to run as thei nominee, it's not going to happen. The reason why is not Trump. The reason why is years of failed promises and out right lies and deception. The conservative movement has done itself in by aligning with politicians who only have themselves and the donor class to serve while telling the voters to fuck off.
I've already agreed with you on the years of failed promises by the GOP which is what led to the rise of Trump. It's not the conservative movement that has done itself in, it's the money, power and greed that has done it in. Some politicians go in with the best of intentions and then begin accepting all kinds of things to increase their power and wealth.
Years of hearing the RNC talk about how they have to reach out to voters and be more inclusive, but yet when those voters show up they scorn them. How many so called conservative politicians give speeches about "freedom" and "liberty" only to have a voting record to show anything but? Hell, just look at the poster boy of the RNC, Paul Ryan, who is supposedly a "conservative", but then look at his voting record and then look at what he has done since becoming the Speaker. Take a look at Mitch McConnell. Just go down the list of current Republicans now serving. The actual "conservatives are far and few between.
I've already stated in multiple threads that Paul Ryan is not the conservative he claimed to be.
The GOP has screwed the pooch and shit on voters for too long and now it's coming back to haunt them and they have no one to blame but themselves.
You speak as if the RNC and conservatives are some abstract notion that you aren't apart of. If you're voting for Trump, you're either conservative, a Republican, both or just fed up with all politicians but either way likely lean Republican. Trump supporters seem to think they aren't, or shouldn't be, grouped in with the Republicans. Did you vote for McCain or Romney? That's rhetorical but the point is on some level, we the voters are responsible for the RNC going the direction it has. When some of us voters decide that we've had enough of it and want to stand on principle and not vote for either Hillary or Trump, we're chastised and told it's our fault if Hillary wins because we were too busy standing on principles when we could've stopped Hillary. Which is it? Do we begin to somehow correct the course of the ship or do we continue to put it off just one more election cycle so that way the Democrats don't get the White House again?
-
It pains me to say that the reaction to Trump's SCOTUS list by some self-identified conservatives shows that for some it remains more important to them to be proven small 'r' right, than to support the only candidate with any chance of governing big 'R' right (as in conservative).
Trump's SCOTUS list shows a real and well-formed appreciation and understanding of the job SCOTUS has, and it provides serious candidates - not only is it a good list, it is a clear olive branch not only for conservatives in general, but by selecting at least one justice aligned with conservatives who actively opposed him.
This was a serious attempt to begin to mend fences and provide a mechanism for uniting the party - I expect others will follow.
I understand the continuing opposition from an emotional standpoint, but it is truly counterproductive.
The GOP establishment have nobody to blame for Trump but themselves, and in a way that falls to the big 'C' conservatives as well, since we have not been able to identify and field a candidate with any reasonable shot at success in the primaries or the general.
Call it settling or what you will (and I acknowledge it truly is settling for some), but I believe we need to ride the Trump train and make the best of it we can (by pushing for conservative principles at every turn if we need to remind a Trump administration of them) because the alternative is a given disaster that will in no way govern with conservative principles of any kind (e.g., President Hillary or Weekend at Bernie's).
'Gimp
-
I have no idea where you're getting this from, it doesn't even make sense.
I've already agreed with you on the years of failed promises by the GOP which is what led to the rise of Trump. It's not the conservative movement that has done itself in, it's the money, power and greed that has done it in. Some politicians go in with the best of intentions and then begin accepting all kinds of things to increase their power and wealth.
I've already stated in multiple threads that Paul Ryan is not the conservative he claimed to be.
You speak as if the RNC and conservatives are some abstract notion that you aren't apart of. If you're voting for Trump, you're either conservative, a Republican, both or just fed up with all politicians but either way likely lean Republican. Trump supporters seem to think they aren't, or shouldn't be, grouped in with the Republicans. Did you vote for McCain or Romney? That's rhetorical but the point is on some level, we the voters are responsible for the RNC going the direction it has. When some of us voters decide that we've had enough of it and want to stand on principle and not vote for either Hillary or Trump, we're chastised and told it's our fault if Hillary wins because we were too busy standing on principles when we could've stopped Hillary. Which is it? Do we begin to somehow correct the course of the ship or do we continue to put it off just one more election cycle so that way the Democrats don't get the White House again?
I've voted Republican my whole life. McCain and Romney were sorry choices, but I voted for them because I didn't want a democrat in the WH. Now we have Trump, and like I've stated from the beginning, I will vote for him since he's the republican nominee. Now I'm hearing I shouldn't vote for him because he doesn't give speeches using "freedom" and "liberty" in his speeches (plus other inane reasons) and that we should just let Hillary win, and guarantee us 4 to 5 SC nominations of liberal judges which will alter the court for the rest of my life.
The last two elections should have been wake up calls for the GOP but their arrogance is just too overwhelming.
-
It pains me to say that the reaction to Trump's SCOTUS list by some self-identified conservatives shows that for some it remains more important to them to be proven small 'r' right, than to support the only candidate with any chance of governing big 'R' right (as in conservative).
There are certainly some that will find any excuse to not vote for Trump and that's okay.
Trump's SCOTUS list shows a real and well-formed appreciation and understanding of the job SCOTUS has, and it provides serious candidates - not only is it a good list, it is a clear olive branch not only for conservatives in general, but by selecting at least one justice aligned with conservatives who actively opposed him.
This was a serious attempt to begin to mend fences and provide a mechanism for uniting the party - I expect others will follow.
I agree that this was a serious attempt to reach out to conservatives. I hope he's sincere in this attempt and continues to make more. I hope that if he wins he will use this list as a guide to picking a SCOTUS nominee. I understand that it may not, nor does it have to be, a name from this list.
I understand the continuing opposition from an emotional standpoint, but it is truly counterproductive.
My opposition is not emotional, it's based on his historical statements and his current flip flopping on issues.
The GOP establishment have nobody to blame for Trump but themselves, and in a way that falls to the big 'C' conservatives as well, since we have not been able to identify and field a candidate with any reasonable shot at success in the primaries or the general.
I agree with this completely. I would only add that any conservative that has run that would be acceptable hasn't run a good enough campaign to get the nomination in recent election cycles (not just this one).
Call it settling or what you will (and I acknowledge it truly is settling for some), but I believe we need to ride the Trump train and make the best of it we can (by pushing for conservative principles at every turn if we need to remind a Trump administration of them) because the alternative is a given disaster that will in no way govern with conservative principles of any kind (e.g., President Hillary or Weekend at Bernie's).
'Gimp
I'm not convinced. This is what I referred to earlier when I said that conservatives have settled in recent elections and it got us nowhere and now that some of us are wanting to stand on principle we're being told it'll be our fault if Trump loses (which is another argument I don't buy). Those of us who are not yet convinced of Trump are skeptical of how much better than he would be of Hillary, if at all.
-
I've voted Republican my whole life. McCain and Romney were sorry choices, but I voted for them because I didn't want a democrat in the WH. Now we have Trump, and like I've stated from the beginning, I will vote for him since he's the republican nominee. Now I'm hearing I shouldn't vote for him because he doesn't give speeches using "freedom" and "liberty" in his speeches (plus other inane reasons) and that we should just let Hillary win, and guarantee us 4 to 5 SC nominations of liberal judges which will alter the court for the rest of my life.
The last two elections should have been wake up calls for the GOP but their arrogance is just too overwhelming.
Do you not find it concerning that the presumptive nominee of the party that continually talks about freedom and liberty as being cornerstones of not just the party but of the country has not talked about freedom and liberty? That's very concerning to me.
The counter argument continues to be "well Hillary will win otherwise" and it's just not good enough anymore. I'm tired of being told that I have to settle this time to prevent a Democrat from getting the White House. It didn't work in 2008 and it didn't work in 2012, so why should I be convinced that it's going to work in 2016? There's no alternative? True, there isn't. I guess for some standing on principles doesn't matter and will be the sole reason why Trump didn't win, if he doesn't that is.
-
Simple. He's not a conservative and now he's the presumptive GOP nominee. The GOP isn't necessarily conservative anymore, either. The two aren't the same. There are conservatives within the GOP but by and large the GOP is now the "establishment" and are big government Republicans. As long as they maintain their power and money, they'll continue on the path they're on, which isn't a conservative one.
Conservatives want a conservative to be president and that's not Trump. Before you start saying that conservatives are ideologues and won't ever accept someone who isn't 100% pure and so on and so forth, don't. Conservatives will compromise on a lot of issues but they will not accept compromise on the Constitution and neither should anyone else, yourself included.
I agree that the GOP has failed in many ways and they only have themselves to blame for the rise of Trump. But if you want someone who will actually care about the Constitution and government limiting provisions contained within it, Trump is not the guy (neither is Clinton, before that gets thrown out there).
If Trump loses, it will not be the fault of the voters, it will be Trump's fault.
Suppose Trump has permanently damaged the GOP brand. Why is that a bad thing? But in reality, I think the GOP brand has self destructed allowing Trump to get the nod, and not the other way around.
So, seeing as how the GOP has already screwed and fractured itself, perhaps it will be a good thing if it self destructs and allows a 3rd party, (say the Constitutionalist party) to emerge. They can start out with a large part of the old GOP following, but without the tarnished reputation. They would gain a lot of votes just because they are not the same old shit.
-
Suppose Trump has permanently damaged the GOP brand. Why is that a bad thing? But in reality, I think the GOP brand has self destructed allowing Trump to get the nod, and not the other way around.
I've already agreed in several posts and in several threads that the GOP has done this to themselves, there's no argument there. Also, I didn't say anything about permanent damage to the GOP, I said that Trump will likely set back the conservative movement for years. I was careful to distinguish between the two.
So, seeing as how the GOP has already screwed and fractured itself, perhaps it will be a good thing if it self destructs and allows a 3rd party, (say the Constitutionalist party) to emerge. They can start out with a large part of the old GOP following, but without the tarnished reputation. They would gain a lot of votes just because they are not the same old shit.
How can a Constitutionalist party emerge from the ashes of the GOP if Trump is the president? That's my point with Trump setting the conservative movement back.
-
I've already agreed in several posts and in several threads that the GOP has done this to themselves, there's no argument there. Also, I didn't say anything about permanent damage to the GOP, I said that Trump will likely set back the conservative movement for years. I was careful to distinguish between the two.
How can a Constitutionalist party emerge from the ashes of the GOP if Trump is the president? That's my point with Trump setting the conservative movement back.
They would emerge as a 3rd party; not as a reborn GOP. If Trump is as bad as many here say, it would be a natural progression to the death of the GOP and the rise of an alternative party.
-
They would emerge as a 3rd party; not as a reborn GOP. If Trump is as bad as many here say, it would be a natural progression to the death of the GOP and the rise of an alternative party.
Perhaps. But a third party emerging is still going to be very difficult to do when Trump is president. Then during the mid-terms and 2020 election how now is not the time for a third party to emerge, we have to support Trump in 2020 or else we'll end up with (insert socialist here). It's a never ending cycle.
-
How has Trump damaged the conservative movement? Think about that for a moment.
The GOP has that distinction, and only they are the blame for not being able to promote their agenda. The GOP has had years of broken promises and out right lies to the American voter, yet still demands loyalty. Know how the GOP says "fuck you,"?
"Trust us".
The ideologues are trying every way possible to blame Trump and blame the voters for their failures when it is really them that have failed, and failed miserably.
Watch the Eric Bolling interview embedded in this article. In it, Bolling is trying to convince the interviewee that Trump is a conservative.
That's how Trump and his Trumphumpers like Bolling have damaged the Conservative
Movement - by conducting a hostile takeover of the very term, and attributing it to Trump himself, when nothing could be further from the truth.
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/05/22/foxs-eric-bolling-opens-his-trump-worshiping-imbecile-hole-again-video/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
-
Watch the Eric Bolling interview embedded in this article. In it, Bolling is trying to convince the interviewee that Trump is a conservative.
That's how Trump and his Trumphumpers like Bolling have damaged the Conservative
Movement - by conducting a hostile takeover of the very term, and attributing it to Trump himself, when nothing could be further from the truth.
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/05/22/foxs-eric-bolling-opens-his-trump-worshiping-imbecile-hole-again-video/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
You and other ideologues keep claiming how others have damaged the conservative movement, when in fact it's the conservatives that have and keep damaging it. You cling to the same politicians who claim to be conservative but in reality they are anything but. Years of lying and sticking up the voters ass have come back to haunt the conservatives.
Conservatives can't even run a candidate that attracts main stream voters much less their own base. This was proven during this nomination cycle where conservatives voted for Trump because Cruz was so unpalatable.
-
Krauthammer wrote an article recently asking rhetorically how, after 8 years of Obama, did we find ourselves ending up with the 3 most liberal candidates running for POTUS.
That is a very easy question to answer. Education, the media, and government have purposely swayed people for the last 50+ years into believing in the leftist/liberal/progressive agenda. This country has been brainwashed and indoctrinated.
-
That is a very easy question to answer. Education, the media, and government have purposely swayed people for the last 50+ years into believing in the leftist/liberal/progressive agenda. This country has been brainwashed and indoctrinated.
If that were entirely true, the whole country would be united behind Bernie Sanders, but they aren't. What is more obvious this election cycle is the electorate on both sides are hungry for a more humanist, populist candidate, rather than a policy wonk.
Most liberals really like Bernie because he speaks of solutions (even if they are fantasies) that address lower class concerns and seem to punish the upper class that runs the place. It seems most conservatives really like Trump because he talks like a lower class bone head on the back porch, or in a bar and promises to vanquish (even if they are fantasies) all the evils that concern the lower class conservatives.
People support Hillary for one reason only- "Because Trump". The Republicans put up a wide field of policy wonks and the people said no. The Democrats put up the long anointed policy wonk and many of their people are saying no. It's clear that people everywhere are sick of same ol', same ol'. The problem is, we are nowhere near united on what else to do.
-
They would emerge as a 3rd party; not as a reborn GOP. If Trump is as bad as many here say, it would be a natural progression to the death of the GOP and the rise of an alternative party.
That scenario certainly did not play out as the democratic party became the party of voter fraud, political corruption, the MMGW scam and psychosis.
-
People support Hillary for one reason only- "Because Trump".
I cannot know what lies in their hearts, but many of my friends and family profess to really like Hillary, and have supported her with enthusiasm since before she got in the race.
I can really only go by their words and actions - and I don't think it's a vast-left-wing-conspiracy to befuddle the right.
-
I cannot know what lies in their hearts, but many of my friends and family profess to really like Hillary, and have supported her with enthusiasm since before she got in the race.
I can really only go by their words and actions - and I don't think it's a vast-left-wing-conspiracy to befuddle the right.
Any one that professes to really like Hillary is evil. There can be no other explanation. They have some sort of axe to grind and they think Hillary will help them grind it.
-
Any one that professes to really like Hillary is evil. There can be no other explanation.
Good to know.