PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on June 17, 2016, 10:03:56 AM
-
This is precisely what I feared when I opposed Trump in the first place: that conservatives would allow Trump to become the standard-bearer for conservatism itself, not just the Republican nominee. That heretofore conservatives would sacrifice their principles for victory, and in the process, destroy the possibility of principled victory in the future. That conservatives would pervert themselves, justifying the unjustifiable, to defend a bad man. That conservatism would become Trumpism, and that conservatives would be forced to answer for decades to come just why they wished away degrading statements about women, POWs, American soldiers, the disabled, and Mexicans, why they ignored catering to foreign dictators and domestic white supremacist alt-righters, and why they embraced ad hoc policymaking and tyrannical disdain for Constitutional boundaries. It’s why I made a distinction between those supporting Trump to beat Hillary but still noting Trump’s flaws, and people enthusiastically backing Trump all the way to the finish line.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/6690/yes-trump-damages-conservatism-hes-doing-it-right-ben-shapiro?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=news&utm_campaign=twitterbenshapiro
I think this article does a good job summing up how many conservatives feel. There's a difference, as Shapiro notes, between supporting Trump to stop Hillary and damaging conservatism. If it looks like he's going to lose, hopefully he won't take both houses with him.
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/6690/yes-trump-damages-conservatism-hes-doing-it-right-ben-shapiro?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=news&utm_campaign=twitterbenshapiro
I think this article does a good job summing up how many conservatives feel. There's a difference, as Shapiro notes, between supporting Trump to stop Hillary and damaging conservatism. If Trump looks like he's going to lose, hopefully he won't take both houses with him.
The conservatives have damaged themselves, yet they want to blame Trump. If the conservatives would have got their shit together over the last 20 years Trump wouldn't even be in play right now.
Place the blame where it rightfully belongs.
-
The conservatives have damaged themselves, yet they want to blame Trump. If the conservatives would have got their shit together over the last 20 years Trump wouldn't even be in play right now.
Place the blame where it rightfully belongs.
Shouldn't you be saying "we" instead of "the Conservatives"? Or are you not a Conservative?
-
Shouldn't you be saying "we" instead of "the Conservatives"? Or are you not a Conservative?
After years of being a registered republican I changed my voter registration to independent.
-
As a conservative I don't see Trump as damaging the brand since, as others point out incessantly in their anti-Trump jihad, he is not a big 'C' conservative, especially every time he does something that does not pass muster for the big 'C' conservative movement - and there are things he has said that are clearly not conservative.
The key will be in what he actually does, IF he is elected, since anything/everything he says right now is and should be targeted at securing a large enough plurality of votes from all sectors to beat the margin of cheating Hillary will enjoy.
In other words, much ado about nothing at this point, but not surprised it being Ben Shapiro, his hard-on for Trump rivals some around here.
'Gimp
-
As a conservative I don't see Trump as damaging the brand since, as others point out incessantly in their anti-Trump jihad, he is not a big 'C' conservative, especially every time he does something that does not pass muster for the big 'C' conservative movement - and there are things he has said that are clearly not conservative.
The key will be in what he actually does, IF he is elected, since anything/everything he says right now is and should be targeted at securing a large enough plurality of votes from all sectors to beat the margin of cheating Hillary will enjoy.
In other words, much ado about nothing at this point, but not surprised it being Ben Shapiro, his hard-on for Trump rivals some around here.
'Gimp
If his objective is to reach as many voters as he can, and a number of those are conservatives, he is not doing himself any favors by caving even further on the Second and Fifth Amendments. This is an example of how he will damage conservatism, especially if he becomes President.
-
If his objective is to reach as many voters as he can, and a number of those are conservatives, he is not doing himself any favors by caving even further on the Second and Fifth Amendments. This is an example of how he will damage conservatism, especially if he becomes President.
Why are you not concerned with the Republicans that are currently "damaging conservatism" right now in the house, senate and other government venues?
-
Why are you not concerned with the Republicans that are currently "damaging conservatism" right now in the house, senate and other government venues?
I am, but in those races I can only affect my district/state with my vote. Trump is running for President and is the current focus of national attention.
Are you suggesting that his attacks on critical amendments and civil rights is not worthy of scrutiny and discussion?
-
I am, but in those races I can only affect my district/state with my vote. Trump is running for President and is the current focus of national attention.
Are you suggesting that his attacks on critical amendments and civil rights is not worthy of scrutiny and discussion?
No, just hypocritical of how bad the conservatives have fucked up the Republican Party by their ineptitude and are still doing it now. But for many their attention is focused on Trump and trying to place the blame on him.
Trump is not to blame, the previous actions of the conservatives have given us Trump.
-
No, just hypocritical of how bad the conservatives have fucked up the Republican Party by their ineptitude and are still doing it now. But for many their attention is focused on Trump and trying to place the blame on him.
Trump is not to blame, the previous actions of the conservatives have given us Trump.
It's primarily the establishment that's screwed it all up. Trump comes into play because if he's elected he will damage conservatism because he will, and has already, become the de facto leader of the Republican Party. His "compromises" on the Bill of Rights will become how Republicans are viewed. I agree that Republican's actions have produced Trump, but that doesn't absolve Trump for his role in damaging the future of conservatism.
-
It's primarily the establishment that's screwed it all up. Trump comes into play because if he's elected he will damage conservatism because he will, and has already, become the de facto leader of the Republican Party. His "compromises" on the Bill of Rights will become how Republicans are viewed. I agree that Republican's actions have produced Trump, but that doesn't absolve Trump for his role in damaging the future of conservatism.
The "future of conservatism" is damaged. Again, you want to blame Trump, but the actual blame falls on the conservative establishment. Go back and look at all the compromises that have been done by the so called conservatives up till this point. Had they not been so compromising Trump wouldn't even be a factor today.
Even if Trump disappeared today, the lasting damage done by the establishment is still there and by all accounts there is no sign of change ahead.
-
If his objective is to reach as many voters as he can, and a number of those are conservatives, he is not doing himself any favors by caving even further on the Second and Fifth Amendments. This is an example of how he will damage conservatism, especially if he becomes President.
Wait, he will damage the brand simply by getting votes? Is that not the objective of an election, to, I don't know, get elected?
Republican does not equal Conservative but Trump can hardly do worse leading the party than the last several assclowns that created the situation where voters, many of whom are conservative, feel so disaffected (if not outright shit upon) by the last several candidates and campaigns and by the de facto lack of leadership within the party to do anything constructive after being handed the most significant shift in political power in more than half the nation's history.
The damage that is actually being done, and has been done ought to the concern, not some potential damage that may or may not happen at some time in the future - IMO.
'Gimp
-
The "future of conservatism" is damaged. Again, you want to blame Trump, but the actual blame falls on the conservative establishment. Go back and look at all the compromises that have been done by the so called conservatives up till this point. Had they not been so compromising Trump wouldn't even be a factor today.
Even if Trump disappeared today, the lasting damage done by the establishment is still there and by all accounts there is no sign of change ahead.
So there's nothing wrong with Trump, we have nothing to be concerned about with him, he's going to be as great as he says he will be and we don't need to worry about our civil rights under him, right?
-
So there's nothing wrong with Trump, we have nothing to be concerned about with him, he's going to be as great as he says he will be and we don't need to worry about our civil rights under him, right?
You're deflecting now. You are trying to blame all the problems of the conservative movement on Trump and as if somehow he disappears all of the problems go with him, while you ignore the real problems. Read Gimp's reply above, put much better than I can.
-
Wait, he will damage the brand simply by getting votes? Is that not the objective of an election, to, I don't know, get elected?
Republican does not equal Conservative but Trump can hardly do worse leading the party than the last several assclowns that created the situation where voters, many of whom are conservative, feel so disaffected (if not outright shit upon) by the last several candidates and campaigns and by the de facto lack of leadership within the party to do anything constructive after being handed the most significant shift in political power in more than half the nation's history.
The damage that is actually being done, and has been done ought to the concern, not some potential damage that may or may not happen at some time in the future - IMO.
'Gimp
No doubt the existing damage is concerning but why keep digging the hole? The fact that he wants to cave on civil rights and people here are essentially ignoring or excusing it (Acrogimp excepted on the Second Amendment issue) is continuing to dig that proverbial hole and there seems to be no concern about that. Instead it's a "well let's see if that actually happens first and we'll deal with it then." Isn't that the exact same way we found ourselves here to begin with?
-
You're deflecting now. You are trying to blame all the problems of the conservative movement on Trump and as if somehow he disappears all of the problems go with him, while you ignore the real problems. Read Gimp's reply above, put much better than I can.
Go re-read my posts. I've continually said that the actions of the Republicans have given us Trump. But that doesn't, or shouldn't, absolve Trump of his stances on civil rights, yet it somehow has because nobody seems to be overly concerned about it.
-
So there's nothing wrong with Trump, we have nothing to be concerned about with him, he's going to be as great as he says he will be and we don't need to worry about our civil rights under him, right?
Is that you Jeff?
At what point did anyone say we have NOTHING to worry about, or that he will be great?
That is the problem with the Republican party in a nutshell. If your candidate is not perfect, then you'd rather have a professed, anti-gun liberal.
-
No doubt the existing damage is concerning but why keep digging the hole? The fact that he wants to cave on civil rights and people here are essentially ignoring or excusing it (Acrogimp excepted on the Second Amendment issue) is continuing to dig that proverbial hole and there seems to be no concern about that. Instead it's a "well let's see if that actually happens first and we'll deal with it then." Isn't that the exact same way we found ourselves here to begin with?
Actually this is something we can perhaps discuss. We got here because we were repeatedly either sold a bill of goods (I am big C conservative), or we were holding our nose and pulling the handle hoping to prevent a potentially worse outcome - either way we have not been represented by anyone of real conservative principle with any consequence, instead we have seen them roll over time and time again and fail to actually stop any of the most radical political agenda our nation has seen, ever.
Trump is a symptom, not a cause of any of that - he may be as bad as some expect, maybe even worse, but right now all he has to do is siphon enough middle votes from Hillary to overcome the margin of cheating - if that means saying stupid shit then I am OK with that IF he does not govern stupidly and I have more faith in his ability to govern and assemble a solid team of advisors than others do - I could be totally wet and if I am he may well damage the country, I am more concerned about that than damaging a brand that has seemed heel bent on destroying itself fort decades.
'Gimp
-
If your candidate is not perfect, then you'd rather have a professed, anti-gun liberal.
You mean Trump?
-
You mean Trump?
Naw, Trump is a piker when it comes to treading on the 2nd (as compared to Hillary). Its like the difference between the common cold and the flu. I don't want either, but if I had to choose, I'd take the common cold. Does that make you think I am begging for a cold because I really really want to catch a cold?
-
Naw, Trump is a piker when it comes to treading on the 2nd (as compared to Hillary).
He's basically in the same place. He's for the AWB, he is going to straighten the NRA out on No-Fly/No-Buy
-
Is that you Jeff?
At what point did anyone say we have NOTHING to worry about, or that he will be great?
That is the problem with the Republican party in a nutshell. If your candidate is not perfect, then you'd rather have a professed, anti-gun liberal.
At what point has Trump's stances been addressed with an actual answer other than "because Hillary"? I've never once said I was looking for the "perfect" candidate. I acknowledge that every candidate will have flaws or positions with which I may not fully agree. I accepted this with McCain and Romney. Trump is different because of his willingness to cave on so many civil rights. Nobody here seems interested to address that, ether, which is very frustrating. Instead it's all being deflected back onto the Republican Party and their failures (which I've acknowledged several times).
I've also not once said that I am fully on the Never Trump train, but that I am close. The fact that Hillary could end up being president is what is keeping me on the fence.
(PS - Check your PM's)
-
On a conservatism scale, compared to Democrat-in-all-but-name Trump, Romney and McCain are both the second coming of Reagan.
I honestly can't say authoritatively if Hillary or Donnie is more conservative.
-
Actually this is something we can perhaps discuss. We got here because we were repeatedly either sold a bill of goods (I am big C conservative), or we were holding our nose and pulling the handle hoping to prevent a potentially worse outcome - either way we have not been represented by anyone of real conservative principle with any consequence, instead we have seen them roll over time and time again and fail to actually stop any of the most radical political agenda our nation has seen, ever.
Trump is a symptom, not a cause of any of that - he may be as bad as some expect, maybe even worse, but right now all he has to do is siphon enough middle votes from Hillary to overcome the margin of cheating - if that means saying stupid shit then I am OK with that IF he does not govern stupidly and I have more faith in his ability to govern and assemble a solid team of advisors than others do - I could be totally wet and if I am he may well damage the country, I am more concerned about that than damaging a brand that has seemed heel bent on destroying itself fort decades.
'Gimp
That seems like a pretty big gamble to take. If he is elected I hope he doesn't sell out on civil rights but so far there's been no indication of that, and that's very concerning.
-
On a conservatism scale, compared to Democrat-in-all-but-name Trump, Romney and McCain are both the second coming of Reagan.
I honestly can't say authoritatively if Hillary or Donnie is more conservative.
Then you are either functionally retarded or intellectually dishonest.
'Gimp
-
Naw, Trump is a piker when it comes to treading on the 2nd (as compared to Hillary). Its like the difference between the common cold and the flu. I don't want either, but if I had to choose, I'd take the common cold. Does that make you think I am begging for a cold because I really really want to catch a cold?
I find it unfortunate that we even have to ask ourselves which illness we'd rather have.
-
Then you are either functionally retarded or intellectually dishonest.
'Gimp
I'd say both....
-
That seems like a pretty big gamble to take. If he is elected I hope he doesn't sell out on civil rights but so far there's been no indication of that, and that's very concerning.
What indications did we have that McConnell and Boehner would sell us down the river, how about Ryan. Ryan in particular was a standard bearer for big C conservatism and he has been an abject failure as Speaker.
I don't see it as a gamble but that is me.
'Gimp
-
Then you are either functionally retarded or intellectually dishonest.
'Gimp
What actual indications of conservatism do you see in Trump?
-
What indications did we have that McConnell and Boehner would sell us down the river, how about Ryan. Ryan in particular was a standard bearer for big C conservatism and he has been an abject failure as Speaker.
I don't see it as a gamble but that is me.
'Gimp
Trump has said he would sell out on civil rights. And you won't find me disagreeing on Ryan being a failure.
Why can some people not separate the Republican issues from the Trump issues? I know the Republicans are what led to the rise of Trump, but Trump is making his own statements which don't seem to be scrutinized very much.
-
Trump has said he would sell out on civil rights. And you won't find me disagreeing on Ryan being a failure.
Why can some people not separate the Republican issues from the Trump issues? I know the Republicans are what led to the rise of Trump, but Trump is making his own statements which don't seem to be scrutinized very much.
Because you (and others) keep trying to segway in that Trump is the problem and if somehow Trump disappeared everything would magically get better.
-
Because you (and others) keep trying to segway in that Trump is the problem and if somehow Trump disappeared everything would magically get better.
Please link to my post where I said that if Trump wasn't the nominee that all the problems would be solved. Please link to my post where I said that Trump is solely the problem. You won't be able to, because I've never said that.
Trump is one of the many problems and I'm still waiting for an answer as to how Trump will make things better, other than "because Hillary."
There are two primary issues that I see: the establishment and Trump. The two are linked, no doubt, but I see Trump as a continuation of the problem, not the solution.
If Trump is elected and turns out to be a great president, I will gladly and happily be wrong. But the fact that you and others give him a free pass on civil rights is concerning because you either want to ignore the problem or just don't care because he won't be as bad as Hillary.
-
As a conservative I don't see Trump as damaging the brand since, as others point out incessantly in their anti-Trump jihad, he is not a big 'C' conservative, especially every time he does something that does not pass muster for the big 'C' conservative movement - and there are things he has said that are clearly not conservative.
The key will be in what he actually does, IF he is elected, since anything/everything he says right now is and should be targeted at securing a large enough plurality of votes from all sectors to beat the margin of cheating Hillary will enjoy.
In other words, much ado about nothing at this point, but not surprised it being Ben Shapiro, his hard-on for Trump rivals some around here.
'Gimp
The MSM and the left, and I repeat myself, will now and into history formulate the equation:
Trump=Republican=Conservative
and will never differentiate between them. THAT'S how Trump has and will continue to damage Conservatism.
Hell, Lucifer already equates the last two parts of the equation, and makes no differentiation.
The only way Conservatism continues to exist is for Conservatives to act like Conservatives. And that doesn't mean starting after the first Tuesday in November.
-
The only way Conservatism continues to exist is for Conservatives to act like Conservatives. And that doesn't mean starting after the first Tuesday in November.
Then why haven't they been doing this for the past 20 years?
-
Then why haven't they been doing this for the past 20 years?
Because there haven't been enough of us that wish to follow the Constitution.
So I guess the solution is to nominate a guy who would deny Second Amendment rights to Americans put on a "list" without due process. Fantastic. 😡
-
Because there haven't been enough of us that wish to follow the Constitution.
Lame. You have a whole list of conservatives in both houses that have been undermining the American voters and giving th liberals everything they want, and that's the best you can come up with?
Just lame.
-
I like this one. The President has put a program into play in the military allowing illegals in.
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/reps-gosar-king-and-sessions-push-passage-amendments-blocking-daca-recipients-enlisting
The amendment was defeated 211-210
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll317.xml
I've looked over this several times, but do not see where Paul Ryan even cast a vote on this yet he is not listed as not voting.
-
I've looked over this several times, but do not see where Paul Ryan even cast a vote on this yet he is not listed as not voting.
The Speaker traditionally does not vote except in the case of a tie vote to break the tie.
-
Candidate Trump won't cause any lasting damage. Americans have short memories. President Trump, on the other had, could do a real number...
-
Then why haven't they been doing this for the past 20 years?
I think Stan's point is that people who call themselves Conservatives and then go on to act contrary to traditional Conservative values are not true Conservatives. You and he may actually agree on that point. At risk of speaking for him, I think he recognizes that there are lots of these people on politics, especially recently. But I think he'd also agree that nominating and electing someone further from Conservative values than those you are lambasting is also not a great thing.
You seem to be pissed at Conservatives and supporting Trump. Do you believe Trump IS Conservative, is the NEW Conservative, or something different?
-
I think Stan's point is that people who call themselves Conservatives and then go on to act contrary to traditional Conservative values are not true Conservatives. You and he may actually agree on that point. At risk of speaking for him, I think he recognizes that there are lots of these people on politics, especially recently. But I think he'd also agree that nominating and electing someone further from Conservative values than those you are lambasting is also not a great thing.
You seem to be pissed at Conservatives and supporting Trump. Do you believe Trump IS Conservative, is the NEW Conservative, or something different?
Conservatives have been promoting an agenda while acting 180 degrees out from the agenda. They claim how much they desire "conservative values" while giving everything away to the current administration. They go as far as praising certain politicians for being "true conservatives" while in reality those politicians are doing just the opposite.
Everyone is so worked up over the presidential election but no one (even conservatives) seem concerned about the 535 career politicians that are the real culprits. Congress has an approval rating of 15%. Let that sink in for a minute.
Our government is suppose to be a system of checks and balances. However we have a Republican led House and Senate that is impotent and lets the current President do as he pleases without recourse. But Speaker Ryan comes out and says if Trump is elected that he is ready to sue if Trump steps out of line. WTF? Why doesn't Ryan have this passion for the sitting President?
The current crop of career conservative politicians in both houses have and are acting contrary to what voters have put them there for, thus the reason for so much voter discontent. While the senate republicans are trying to shift blame to Trump for a potential loss this November the reality is that has been in play well before Trump even came into play.
Here's the bottom line: The real fear of a Trump presidency to both democrats and republicans is a potential loss of power and disruption of their respective gravy trains they have been cultivating. The corruption of congress has led to run away spending and the largest deficit in history. While we can blame Obama for this lets not forget the members of congress that don't hold him accountable and they are just as culpable.
Last point. If the Republicans had the same passion to have kept Obama in line as they are showing to keep Trump out of the WH, Trump would not even be in play now.
-
Conservatives have been promoting an agenda while acting 180 degrees out from the agenda. They claim how much they desire "conservative values" while giving everything away to the current administration. They go as far as praising certain politicians for being "true conservatives" while in reality those politicians are doing just the opposite.
Everyone is so worked up over the presidential election but no one (even conservatives) seem concerned about the 535 career politicians that are the real culprits. Congress has an approval rating of 15%. Let that sink in for a minute.
Our government is suppose to be a system of checks and balances. However we have a Republican led House and Senate that is impotent and lets the current President do as he pleases without recourse. But Speaker Ryan comes out and says if Trump is elected that he is ready to sue if Trump steps out of line. WTF? Why doesn't Ryan have this passion for the sitting President?
The current crop of career conservative politicians in both houses have and are acting contrary to what voters have put them there for, thus the reason for so much voter discontent. While the senate republicans are trying to shift blame to Trump for a potential loss this November the reality is that has been in play well before Trump even came into play.
Here's the bottom line: The real fear of a Trump presidency to both democrats and republicans is a potential loss of power and disruption of their respective gravy trains they have been cultivating. The corruption of congress has led to run away spending and the largest deficit in history. While we can blame Obama for this lets not forget the members of congress that don't hold him accountable and they are just as culpable.
Last point. If the Republicans had the same passion to have kept Obama in line as they are showing to keep Trump out of the WH, Trump would not even be in play now.
A few points on this. First, generally speaking, I agree with the overall concept that career politicians aren't doing what they were elected to do and that the Republicans have let the President get away with a lot.
You seem to put conservatives and Republicans into the same category and that's not accurate, nor is it fair to the few true conservatives in Congress that are actually trying to do the right thing. Granted there are a number of Congressmen who ran as Tea Party members or as conservatives that turned out not to be but that's not all of them.
You want to call out the Republicans for their actions, as we all should, yet you place the responsibility for their continued reelections on "us" and don't include yourself. You stated previously that you were a Republican and changed to a registered Independent. Have you voted in any of the elections for Republicans in the last several decades? If you have, you're part of this as well then. Further, you continue to blame Republicans for the predicament that they're in, which is fine, but fail to acknowledge that Trump is not a conservative and give him a pass on everything he says, especially when the positions aren't even Republican, let alone conservative (see his civil rights stances, especially the most recent ones).
-
Conservatives have been promoting an agenda while acting 180 degrees out from the agenda. They claim how much they desire "conservative values" while giving everything away to the current administration. They go as far as praising certain politicians for being "true conservatives" while in reality those politicians are doing just the opposite.
Everyone is so worked up over the presidential election but no one (even conservatives) seem concerned about the 535 career politicians that are the real culprits. Congress has an approval rating of 15%. Let that sink in for a minute.
Our government is suppose to be a system of checks and balances. However we have a Republican led House and Senate that is impotent and lets the current President do as he pleases without recourse. But Speaker Ryan comes out and says if Trump is elected that he is ready to sue if Trump steps out of line. WTF? Why doesn't Ryan have this passion for the sitting President?
The current crop of career conservative politicians in both houses have and are acting contrary to what voters have put them there for, thus the reason for so much voter discontent. While the senate republicans are trying to shift blame to Trump for a potential loss this November the reality is that has been in play well before Trump even came into play.
Here's the bottom line: The real fear of a Trump presidency to both democrats and republicans is a potential loss of power and disruption of their respective gravy trains they have been cultivating. The corruption of congress has led to run away spending and the largest deficit in history. While we can blame Obama for this lets not forget the members of congress that don't hold him accountable and they are just as culpable.
Last point. If the Republicans had the same passion to have kept Obama in line as they are showing to keep Trump out of the WH, Trump would not even be in play now.
Good post. The interesting thing here is that you, Stan, and Jeff probably have very similar opinions with regard to many "Republican" politicians. I feel comfortable saying that because I've seen them complain in the past about our elected officials failing to uphold Conservative values.
But it's clear that you all fundamentally disagree on whether Trump is the answer, or will be far worse than even the pseudo-conservatives that currently hold office.
-
The GOP has let Obama do what he wants? His legislative record is nearly nil. Many, if not most of his Executive actions have been challenged in court. What exactly are they supposed to do? There is a limit to Congressional power, thus if Congress decides to act in a nearly complete obstructive fashion they really aren't going to get a whole lot done.
-
The GOP has let Obama do what he wants? His legislative record is nearly nil. Many, if not most of his Executive actions have been challenged in court. What exactly are they supposed to do? There is a limit to Congressional power, thus if Congress decides to act in a nearly complete obstructive fashion they really aren't going to get a whole lot done.
They've sat back and let illegal immigration policy stand. They've given him every budget he wants, and went along with all his SPENDING.
-
Actually, they've challenged it in court, which is all they can do. They've done everything they can to reduce spending, including a threatened default. What folks have to realize is that there are limits to everyone's power. That, and real spending reductions would make them immensely unpopular, since they're have to cut out payments to medicare and social security. You think folks are mad now? Wait until they don't get their checks.
-
A few points on this. First, generally speaking, I agree with the overall concept that career politicians aren't doing what they were elected to do and that the Republicans have let the President get away with a lot.
You seem to put conservatives and Republicans into the same category and that's not accurate, nor is it fair to the few true conservatives in Congress that are actually trying to do the right thing. Granted there are a number of Congressmen who ran as Tea Party members or as conservatives that turned out not to be but that's not all of them.
You want to call out the Republicans for their actions, as we all should, yet you place the responsibility for their continued reelections on "us" and don't include yourself. You stated previously that you were a Republican and changed to a registered Independent. Have you voted in any of the elections for Republicans in the last several decades? If you have, you're part of this as well then.
I registered to vote in the mid 70's and haven't missed any elections yet. I made my choice to reregister as an independent this year as I'm tired of the buffoonery that has become the republican party, and I'm tired of phony conservatives being paraded around as if they are some sort of god sends while they align themselves with Obama.
Further, you continue to blame Republicans for the predicament that they're in, which is fine, but fail to acknowledge that Trump is not a conservative and give him a pass on everything he says, especially when the positions aren't even Republican, let alone conservative (see his civil rights stances, especially the most recent ones).
Go back and find those post that I've given Trump "a pass on everything" and post them here.
Again, it's back to "blame Trump" for everything happening. Let's turn this around shall we? Instead of doing what you and a few others are attempting (blame Trump) why do you constantly give Republicans and Conservatives "a pass on everything" when you know they are screwing us? Like Stan your ideology is blinding you from seeing what is going on.
-
The GOP has let Obama do what he wants? His legislative record is nearly nil. Many, if not most of his Executive actions have been challenged in court. What exactly are they supposed to do? There is a limit to Congressional power, thus if Congress decides to act in a nearly complete obstructive fashion they really aren't going to get a whole lot done.
He rammed Obamacare through with zero support from Republicans. It's the largest healthcare overhaul in the country's history, so I don't think his legislative record can be considered "nearly nil".
-
Actually, they've challenged it in court, which is all they can do. They've done everything they can to reduce spending, including a threatened default. What folks have to realize is that there are limits to everyone's power. That, and real spending reductions would make them immensely popular, since they're have to cut out payments to medicare and social security. You think folks are mad now? Wait until they don't get their checks.
Cuts can be done without cutting SS and Medicare. That is nothing but fear mongering used by both sides to enable more spending.
The government is full of waste. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste
-
Actually, they've challenged it in court, which is all they can do.
Congress shouldn't have to challenge something in court, they can just not pass the bills he wants. Of course they've had to go to court because the President currently does whatever he wants with his pen and phone and ignores Congress.
They've done everything they can to reduce spending, including a threatened default.
How do you figure? We have record debt in this country and that's because the Republicans have given the President what he wanted.
-
I registered to vote in the mid 70's and haven't missed any elections yet. I made my choice to reregister as an independent this year as I'm tired of the buffoonery that has become the republican party, and I'm tired of phony conservatives being paraded around as if they are some sort of god sends while they align themselves with Obama.
Go back and find those post that I've given Trump "a pass on everything" and post them here.
Again, it's back to "blame Trump" for everything happening. Let's turn this around shall we? Instead of doing what you and a few others are attempting (blame Trump) why do you constantly give Republicans and Conservatives "a pass on everything" when you know they are screwing us? Like Stan your ideology is blinding you from seeing what is going on.
Again you have taken yourself out of this as if you're better than everyone and hold no responsibility for these politicians being reelected. In fact, you really didn't address anything I said while then telling me that I give Republicans a pass on everything when I've said, in this thread (and others) and in direct response to your post, that Republicans are to blame for much of this. This is also one example of giving Trump a pass since I addressed his positions on civil rights.
-
Again you have taken yourself out of this as if you're better than everyone and hold no responsibility for these politicians being reelected. In fact, you really didn't address anything I said while then telling me that I give Republicans a pass on everything when I've said, in this thread (and others) and in direct response to your post, that Republicans are to blame for much of this. This is also one example of giving Trump a pass since I addressed his positions on civil rights.
You only see what you want to see. Your mantra of "giving Trump a pass" for every reply is getting tired and old.
Do you toss and turn every night and have nightmares about Trump?
-
He rammed Obamacare through with zero support from Republicans. It's the largest healthcare overhaul in the country's history, so I don't think his legislative record can be considered "nearly nil".
True, but since then he hasn't passed diddly squat. The elimination of earmarks likely has a lot to do with it, but still he has almost no legislative agenda.
-
Cuts can be done without cutting SS and Medicare. That is nothing but fear mongering used by both sides to enable more spending.
The government is full of waste. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste
Defund the discretionary part of the Executive. That means no military, Department of Education, or Department of anything. Send everyone home. At that point the government just barely takes in what it gives out. Barely. and as the interest on the debt grows it won't even be able to do that.
-
Defund the discretionary part of the Executive. That means no military, Department of Education, or Department of anything. Send everyone home. At that point the government just barely takes in what it gives out. Barely. and as the interest on the debt grows it won't even be able to do that.
Grasping at straws, again.
Go back and read the article I posted and tell me why none of those 50 items can be eliminated.
-
Grasping at straws, again.
Not all all, go ahead and do a bit of reading yourself. Those are how the numbers stack up.
The problem we have is large organizations tend to work less efficiently than smaller ones. The same is true in business, there is tons of waste in large businesses like banks, insurance companies, and manufacturing concerns. It is a fiendishly difficult thing to prevent. Moreover, one man's "waste" is another's lifeline.
Even so, take away everything that article talks about and it changes nothing at all. Like I said, defund the Executive and Legislative entirely and you almost balance the budget. That's how bad it is. The reason politicians keep kicking the can is there are no good choices. there are lots of really bad ones, but no one wants to make them because the second they do they'll be run out of office.
-
Not all all, go ahead and do a bit of reading yourself. Those are how the numbers stack up.
The problem we have is large organizations tend to work less efficiently than smaller ones. The same is true in business, there is tons of waste in large businesses like banks, insurance companies, and manufacturing concerns. It is a fiendishly difficult thing to prevent. Moreover, one man's "waste" is another's lifeline.
Even so, take away everything that article talks about and it changes nothing at all. Like I said, defund the Executive and Legislative entirely and you almost balance the budget. That's how bad it is. The reason politicians keep kicking the can is there are no good choices. there are lots of really bad ones, but no one wants to make them because the second they do they'll be run out of office.
More deflection, and you couldn't even answer a simple question.
Living in a sheltered world of academia hidden away from reality.
-
Then you are either functionally retarded or intellectually dishonest.
'Gimp
Well, fisacally speaking, it looks like Donnie is far less conservative than Hillary...
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/284959-report-trump-and-clinton-would-face-challenges-stabilizing-the-debt
Neither of the presumptive presidential nominees have put forth ideas to address the debt, but Trump's plan would increase it by far more than Clinton's, the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said in a report to be released Monday.
-
Well, fisacally speaking, it looks like Donnie is far less conservative than Hillary...
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/284959-report-trump-and-clinton-would-face-challenges-stabilizing-the-debt
I believe those people are better at arithmetic than analysis. They can add up revenue and expenses and compute the difference, but they are not so good at anticipating revenue increases due to economic expansion, or decreases due to contraction. That is why they are always wrong.
But I guess if you choose to believe them this time because it suit your agenda, their predictions are as good as any liberal's.
-
I believe those people are better at arithmetic than analysis. They can add up revenue and expenses and compute the difference, but they are not so good at anticipating revenue increases due to economic expansion, or decreases due to contraction. That is why they are always wrong.
But I guess if you choose to believe them this time because it suit your agenda, their predictions are as good as any liberal's.
You might want to try actually reading the analysis, because they actually covered that.
In order to get below Hillary's debt numbers, Donnie would need to average 10% per year economic growth. I believe that's around triple what any economist will sign off on, and well above any one-year record in modern times. But yeah, Donnie will totally make that happen, because reasons.
-
Living in a sheltered world of academia hidden away from reality.
Insult me all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
-
Insult me all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
Not an insult at all, just stating a fact.
-
Not an insult at all, just stating a fact.
No, you're stating an utterly uninformed opinion.
-
No, you're stating an utterly uninformed opinion.
In your mind, maybe. Academics live in a fantasy world where their opinions (or fantasies) are not to be questioned because of their perceived superiority. They thrive in front of a captured audience that often has to concede to their fantasies in order to gain a passing grade. Outside of a campus and class room the academic finds his opinions (fantasies) are in fact not widely accepted.
-
There are two primary issues that I see: the establishment and Trump. The two are linked, no doubt, but I see Trump as a continuation of the problem, not the solution.
Your thought that government is the solution to anything tends to be troublesome.
-
In your mind, maybe. Academics live in a fantasy world where their opinions (or fantasies) are not to be questioned because of their perceived superiority. They thrive in front of a captured audience that often has to concede to their fantasies in order to gain a passing grade. Outside of a campus and class room the academic finds his opinions (fantasies) are in fact not widely accepted.
What a shock. Lucifer jumps to ad hominem.
-
Your thought that government is the solution to anything tends to be troublesome.
Where did I suggest that government was the solution to any problem?
-
Where did I suggest that government was the solution to any problem?
Refer to your quote to which I responded. If I misunderstood your words, or you said them with emotion and not thought, accept my apology.
-
Refer to your quote to which I responded. If I misunderstood your words, or you said them with emotion and not thought, accept my apology.
I went back and re-read several posts to see if I could understand where you got that from and I can't. I wasn't trying to suggest that government is the solution to anything. In fact I was saying that both the establishment and Trump are parts of the problem.
-
I went back and re-read several posts to see if I could understand where you got that from and I can't. I wasn't trying to suggest that government is the solution to anything. In fact I was saying that both the establishment and Trump are parts of the problem.
There are two primary issues that I see: the establishment and Trump. The two are linked, no doubt, but I see Trump as a continuation of the problem, not the solution.
You said there are two issues: The establishment and Trump.
Then you said but Trump is a continuation of the problem, not the solution". It stands to reason then that the establishment IS the solution.
Even if I don't think that is what you meant (and I don't), that is how your statement sounded.
-
You said there are two issues: The establishment and Trump.
Then you said but Trump is a continuation of the problem, not the solution". It stands to reason then that the establishment IS the solution.
Even if I don't think that is what you meant (and I don't), that is how your statement sounded.
I still don't see it but that's alright. That's not what I was trying to imply.
-
I still don't see it but that's alright. That's not what I was trying to imply.
Understood. I didn't think you meant it that way.
But on more example.
Suppose I said there are two people on this board: You and some other guy. I like the other guy.
What would you assume that means I think about you.
(that was just an example, I wasn't implying anything). :)