Many people are not comfortable looking over their shoulders at shopping malls and cancelling their season tickets with their children in tow.
They are living under the banner and constraints of Washington's long winded establishment of broken promises and 3rd citizen status. Told time and again that they are not capable to think for themselves as they wallow in disgust.
Negotiate and compromise. Should that fail half measures of war will calm down the discontent. The American people are salivating for a barroom brawling leader, being inundated with PC rhetoric for far too long. They feel they have been suppressed in word and action and look to a Trump as their voice. Someone who will champion the average man even as he sits at the top of the heap economically and drives his fist on the stage in anger and emotion. The people realize Trump is not about and will not play the singular driving force of politics. Money. He has too much. He can't be bought. That single phrase sends chills down the spines of politicians the world over. The second half of that thought which is equally concerning is that he CAN buy. Everything has a price. Votes, first and foremost. Ask the special interest groups. Trump would be the first of many things if elected and a pariah to Democrats whose rank and file have their hands out. President or VP AND special interest for his cause. That is power folks. POWER.
The Rock
Exactly the sentiment of many people to which he appeals.
Mac Hammond tells us that Jesus wants us to be rich. If that is true, Trump knows a LOT!
The Rock
What they are really doing is believing in his ability to perform. He has already proven that just in this election cycle by expending little money and getting huge results. This nation needs that kind of success model. People are tired of hearing that we are the greatest nation on earth and seeing results that look like the local cess pool. Foreign policy, Education ratings, government overreach with EPA,IRS and all the rest of the alpha bet soup agencies, coupled with un-speakable ineffieciency and corruption. Since you seem to have all the answers and every one else is blind, or at least believe you do, Which candidate do you believe in? Let me guess, Rubio?
All I need is to see his work ethic , no vote Obama again, to know that he is not who this nation needs.
Another guess< Ted Cruz. We could actually get in agreement here. He is the most brilliant, well educated, capable candidate to ever run for president. Add to this his work ethic, his dependability and his honesty and He can't possibly win , Can he.
God bless, Steve
Whether you believe it or not, almost all aspects of life are "business based". From religion to politics and everything in between. Both business and politics are based on the fact that you can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
The difference is that business requires a certain level of politics to succeed. Politics are forced to use business tactics to survive. A business evolves with it customer base to stay alive, as politics BUYS it's customer base to survive.
In a nutshell, Trump is a carreer businessman who's politics help drive his success and please as many people as he can. A career politician tells people he can please them, but rarely has the business sense to make good on his promises.
While I don't necessarily trust Trump (if Trump has shown anything it's that he's 100% for TRUMP), he's FAR more qualified to be POTUS than the current Sh*t Stain we now have. At least Trump's actually had a JOB where he's had to produce something other than bullsh*t.
In fact, Trump's probably a lot more qualified than many career politicians in that he understands how to deal from a position of strength.
"A multi-billionaire is style over substance."
As if the minions would know such a thing.
Turn in your voter registration for the sake of the people. You are scaring me.
The Rock
The hero starved sycophants who are supporting him and worshiping him are going to feel like such rubes when it finally becomes apparent to them that he's been playing them for fools.
Lol! I don't necessarily support Trump...but I am interested in hearing which politician and their supporters don't fit that theory!!
so true....also trump was born a rich kid in a rich family. It's not like he is a rags to riches kind of guy.
He would have the best looking first lady of any president we have had for a while! Talk about a trophy wife....
I would hope no one would argue with you that the country would have been better served with a solid conservative option in 2008 and 2012.
That being said I don't think I would label someone a fool who felt that John McCain or Mitt Romney would do less harm than Barack Obama. (Please note the term used was "less harm" not "do good".)
I think in 2016 we do have the choice of a solid conservative; Ted Cruz. I think we have the latest incarnation of either the Pied Piper of Hamelin or the Wizard of Oz in Donald Trump and while one cannot dispute his appeal to that surging sense of frustration one also must temper that frustration with reason; whatever else he may be Donald Trump is no conservative.
For those who drew a clear line in the sand regarding Mssrs. McCain and Romney that lines continues without deviation through Mr. Trump as well.
Frankly I amazed that we few exceptions, those who saw the flaws in the 2008 and 2012 "choices" skip right over them (for the moment) with regard to Mr. Trump.
The End.
A rube is a rube.
And another half dozen who claim to favor Cruz but post 10 times as many positive comments about Trump as they do about Cruz....
and did you forget..
" that conservatives have screwed us just as well as good as the Dems.."
Of course you did. Blinders will do that.
The Rock
Oh my, what delicious irony that you, a Trump supporter, would be talking to other people about "Blinders". Too much.
The GoP failed to use the Constitutional weapons they had--even the ones that the Dems had used when the control was in their hands--to give more that a weak appearance of opposition. Even with Boehner out and a strong message sent, Obama got a budget that lasts till his successor is elected.
Trump is the creation of the frustration of the people of this country who have not only been ignored, but have had obamunism shoved in their faces and the opposition GoP presenting themselves as spineless.
And because their creation cannot be controlled by them, they are showing that they would rather loose again than allow Trump to gain the nomination. The WSJ had a story this past weekend that big money beltway eGoP were organizing to fight Trump and prevent him from being the nominee. Trump has responded that this sort of organizing violates the spirit of the agreement he signed earlier WRT running as an independent. Should that happen, the GoP and this country can kiss the US goodbye as Hillary will finish the demolition started by Obama.
To "derail" Trump, these people should be putting their efforts in building a Cruz candidacy. If I had a say, I would encourage all the GoP candidates to focus on Hillary, the proregressives and how each one of them would deal with the important issues.
The GoP concerns me...the party seems to be destined to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Mouse, I and many others here I'm sure share this sentiment, but most have the good sense not to look to someone whose policies are more those of a Democrat than a real Conservative, as the person to finally honor their promises. I don't think you or Spike or Jim in Ohio or HeadHunter or Rupe or Shuteye or any others here who have a schoolboy infatuation with Trump would disagree with that. And yet....TRUMP!
I think we're on the same page; my references to McCain & Romney were not meant to define a cause, I would label them as symptoms of the disease you alluded to, the failure of those elected in 2012 & 2014 to govern as elected.
Where it might be very appropriate to bring McCain & Romney into the Trump phenomenon discussion would be in addition to the issues you cited as an emphatic "not again" declaration regarding who is to be the Republican standard bearer at the top of the ticket.
For the record I don't think you are enamored of Trump the politician; I think you have stated on multiple occasions that you enjoy the effect he's had on forcing the hand of the field to tackle the issues and not work out made-for-TV sound bites that have all style and no substance.
In that regard I am glad that we're not tap-dancing around serious issues.
"To "derail" Trump, these people should be putting their efforts in building a Cruz candidacy. If I had a say, I would encourage all the GoP candidates to focus on Hillary, the prorefressives and how each one of them would deal with the important issues.
The GoP concerns me...the party seems to be destined to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory."
Absolutely in the 10x ring Jack; couldn't have said it any better and agree with you completely.
The general public does not know (and shown they do not care--demonstrated by the election of Obama and the fact that Hillary still exists as a candidate)about Trump's past history. They ignore the past, live in the present and don't care about the future.
I listen to and watch people when I am out and about... and pic up bits and pieces of conversations. When it comes to so many issues, people like what they hear from Trump...he is not afraid to say what people want to hear. It sells. (Local Muslims are terrified of Trump!)
One can get a good feel about public sentiment by listening to what their children say. Surprisingly, many students find Trump's views on immigration, national security, terrorism favorable. They don't really follow the news, but parrot their parents' views.
Trump is the creation of the GoP. That cannot be denied. They own the Trump phenomena.
They made promises:
a. Give us the House and we will fight for you
b. We need the Senate to really fight for you
And they were given both...with the election of many true conservatives. And the Boehner/McConnel old guard refused to listen to the messengers sent and continued to submit. When these junior members stood up--they were punished by the establishment--loosing chairmanships and committees. The GoP basically adopted the French surrender flag.
The last two election cycles were affirmation of conservative views. And the eGoP is unwilling to recognize that simple fact.
And the eGoP message was sent: business as usual. The voters who gave them both houses continued to see that there was no change, no real attempt to deliver on the promises made.
Now they are making another promise: Give us the Presidency and we'll fix everything. After a while, snake oil just doesn't sell.
The eGoP created the perfect environment for a showman like Trump to rise and grow. His message is obvious...it is what everyone has been thinking and saying--and few in the Republican Party had the courage to talk about. Trump is their creation...and like most monsters, cannot be controlled by them.
Sadly, I think in the end, the party will spend too much effort to destroy their monster and the fall out will allow Hillary to win. At this point, it might be better to recognize their own failures and find a way to enhance an alternative to Trump rather than go to war against him.
IMHO: war does not give hope of the change we need.
Folks are so fed up they want a strong response and Trump is giving it to them. That said, no way he is the best candidate...Fiorina is my pick but she doesn't have the political machine the others have.
And the fact that you are more informed than the general public is all the more reason it is unsupportable for you to be an admirer and promoter of Trump. Honoring the sentiment you spoke of earlier by putting Trump up as the standard bearer of it is beyond absurdity. He is one of the last people in the GOP race who could possibly bring fulfillment to those hopes.
No doubt Mouse and the Dem's know it. How else could any party support such a lousy Candidate at this point in the race.
"... For the record I don't think you are enamored of Trump the politician; I think you have stated on multiple occasions that you enjoy the effect he's had on forcing the hand of the field to tackle the issues and not work out made-for-TV sound bites that have all style and no substance.
In that regard I am glad that we're not tap-dancing around serious issues..."
Mike understands. Maybe the nuances are beyond you ;o)
"Oh my, what delicious irony that you, a Trump supporter, would be talking to other people about "Blinders". Too much."
You are much stronger in weakness than I had anticipated. You speak for yourself that magnifies your foolish followings.
I know. You don't understand. How could you?
The Rock
Mike is free to draw his own conclusions. I will draw mine. My conclusion is that your frequent postings of articles and comments praising Trump and downfield blocking for him is de facto promotion of him, regardless of what you might say to the contrary.
Waiting for an answer........."
Spike, equating the man-love on here for Trump from you and multiple others with "I just liked this one thing he said" is....ridiculous. And you know it.
I find it highly entertaining - and depressingly sad - that those of you who spend so much time pumping Trump on this forum always seem to feel the need to give the caveat that Cruz is your guy. Even though you post roughly 1000% more positive/fawning stories/comments about Trump than you do about Cruz. Even you self-consciously realize how much time you spend overtly propping up Trump, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to keep giving the caveat about Cruz.
No one on here would ever suspect that I was secretly a Trump fan, because my natural inclination is to post positive things about the candidate that I most identify with and support. You do the exact same thing with Trump, and yet tell us you actually want Cruz, even though you post so many more things about Trump. What you are saying vs. what you are doing does not compute.
Even if there were half a dozen things Trump has said that I agreed with, it wouldn't matter because I don't believe him. He is a liar, and what's worse, he is a shameless liar.
If Trump was running as a Democrat (that he actually is), we would never hear the end of complaints from you and others of his boosters here about his dishonesty and political opportunism and regularly talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Trump is all about ethanol cronyism. Because of course. https://t.co/p6aUs7qhIa
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) November 24, 2015Opening paragraph in above linked article:
"The longer that Donald Trump’s campaign for president goes on, the more he is exposed as a deeply unconservative, anti-free market, anti-limited government liberal who has just conned the media and a bunch of poor, low-information voters into thinking he’s conservative by saying a bunch of inflammatory things, usually involving women or minorities."
Are you just trying to prove that he says what he knows the masses want to hear, regardless of what he actually believes? Like multiple posters here have said, oh, many dozens of times?
Or are you just trying to make an excuse about how he tickled your ears so much with his rhetoric that you got all excited, even though you knew he was lying?
I'm not saying you lacked the knowledge. I'm saying you knew, and didn't care, which is much, much worse.
You're the one, by the way, that said "even if I grant you that he was lying about his true position".
With all due respect this is insulting on multiple levels. I'm not sure if you realize one facet or not but in a nutshell you're virtually telling people that you need to establish that Trump is lying, either because the audience you question lack the insight and/or intelligence to discern that or while they're reasonably insightful and/or intelligent they lack your ability to see through a charade.
This is akin to your having asked joshuaf if he prefers to be backhanded from left to right or right to left. I can almost feel the urge in him to say "Thank you sir, may I have some more?" (sarcasm off)
Secondly it presupposes that all of the target audience is somehow so thirsty, so desperate to hear something that strikes a personal chord that they will completely ignore a historical path so obvious that a blind man could dispense with his guide dog and follow.
It assumes, to be blunt, that this audience will shuck their principles faster than Hillary Clinton shucks the truth, all for the sake of admittance into the growing flock of Trump lemmings.
joshuaf's Link
Poll: Ted Cruz pulls even with Donald Trump in Iowa By NICK GASS 11/24/15 07:00 AM EST
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/poll-ted-cruz-iowa-trump-216166
"Ted Cruz, buoyed by tea party support and the backing of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, has surged to a virtual tie with Donald Trump in the first caucus state of Iowa, according to the results of a Quinnipiac University poll surveying likely Republican caucus-goers released Tuesday.
Trump took 25 percent of support, followed by 23 percent who opted for the freshman Texas senator, more than doubling his support in the same poll from October, when he earned just 10 percent. Trailing the two leaders is Ben Carson, who dropped from first to third, falling 10 points to 18 percent.....
.....Cruz drew 42 percent of his support from Republicans identifying with the tea party, nearly double the next closest candidate in Trump, with 23 percent of support from that group. While Cruz leads Trump among those who described themselves as very conservative (38 percent to 21 percent), Trump holds advantages over Cruz and Carson among those describing themselves as only somewhat conservative and, strikingly, those describing themselves as moderate or liberal. The Texas senator also narrowly outperformed Trump and Carson among white, born-again Evangelical Christians, earning 27 percent to Carson's 24 percent and Trump's 20 percent.
Two election cycles with wins (giving the House and then retaining that and winning the Senate), each followed by a widely observed failure to not only deliver on promises made, but also little attempts to do so. This has made many people distrust the Republican label. The voters saw the leadership marginalize and punish the newly elected conservatives who won the seats that gave them the House and Senate when they did not toe the party line. Four years of promises and only show votes to be counted as victories.
Without a true opposition party, Trump easily found a market. The GoP has shown that it had neither the inclination or ability to deliver on the product promised.
In facing the monster that they themselves have created, the Republican Party has to take care in how they deal with Trump. Overt-all-out war to displace him may present more problems down the road than not. First, they may well give cause for Trump to run as an independent as he may well consider that the GoP reneged on their part of the deal where he pledged not to go independent. If that happens, we have a Perot election where Trump would siphon off enough votes to ensure a Democrat win.
Second, such attacks might make for a number of disgruntled supporters to vote for the Republican nominee.
It may be too late to take alternative action to avoid a Trump nomination. That train may have already left the station. I truly fear that the GoP will loose what should be a slam-dunk win election.
In the end, whoever is chosen may not really matter as the real enemies will have to be faced: the no-rule mud wrestling Democrats and their media minions who will lie and distort every news item on the Republican candidate.
You continually light the fuse from the opposite end. Your funny. Not very intelligent but funny none the less.
Mike in CT,
Your five star gold branding here has somehow transformed you into the protector of the box that you so conveniently place yourself into. Standing so close to joshauf it is difficult to tell who is standing in whose shoes. Continue on Maestro with your string section repairing hemp.
The Rock
Your thesis stands without rebuttal for the simple fact of it's veracity.
Ronald Reagan was a stark contrast to Jimmy Carter in every regard. The wave that grew and propelled him to a landslide victory occurred for the most obvious of reasons; voters were presented with a clear difference and a solid option to vote FOR.
To your point the Republican base sees the bulk of the original Sloppy 16 as a pale imitation of the deep-blue liberal; hardly a galvanizing presence to rally behind.
Into this leadership vacuum stepped Donald Trump. Sampling the market he quickly found the "hot buttons" and targeted his message accordingly. GOP leadership initially seemed to completely dismiss the significance of Trump and his campaign. Secure in their arrogance and their misreading of the 2012 and 2014 elections they dismissed him out of hand.
As the months have worn on they have been dragged, kicking and screaming into accepting the reality of his threat to their plans. I suspect one conundrum they face now is that they have no horse in their stable to compete with Trump, hence the need to tear him down. The sad reality is the candidate best poised to take the mantle and lead the GOP to victory is the one it seems they'd rather cede the election to Hillary to than embrace-Ted Cruz.
If there were ever a time for the Conservative base to rise up and demand to be heard it is now. We have a great candidate and a great opportunity. History will judge us harshly if we fail to act on it.
I wonder if it is too late to convince Bill Whittle to toss his hat into the ring...
The key word there Spike is "mirror"; you might want to consider the meaning of the term and then you might have a better understanding of why some don't even dignify your hypothetical question.
Or you can keep guessing.......
The short answer is no. As you seem to be set on "obtuse" I'll elaborate; he hasn't DONE anything as far as governing consistent with his rhetoric.
In this he has a free hand to play his magic flute and watch the great unwashed sit rapt at his feet.
Now, in case you're not up on current events, Ted Cruz has ACTIONS that align in perfect concert with his campaigning.
If I really have to point out anything this obvious to you it's clear, to me and I'm sure from responses above others, that you're asking the wrong person "is that all you have?"
I call that a person who's finally had enough BS and that has enough self respect that he won't be played for a gullible idiot anymore if you want to start name calling.
And I'd say that "just plain stupid" are the Charlie Brown types who keep getting the football pulled away from them by the GOP leadership but they keep believing the BS. That's bordering on Obama level lying and that's pretty darn stupid!
I don't believe for one moment you have as much as you would like to think you have as others above should have posted. In fact I am positively certain. You are all bluster easily identified.
The Rock
Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process.
I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.
"The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not."
"The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation."
"It's time that we move from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions."
People have to stop employing illegal immigrants.
All quotes by
hilury clinton
One step forward.
but do you really think that Trump has never ever said anything he would like to do which coincides with what Cruz has said he wants to do and that you would like to see happen?
Two steps backward.
Spike, if soaring oratory were also followed by lofty acheivements you and I could both posts lists of dozens of candidates, past and present who have said literally countless things we'd both love to see happen.
3 words as a cautionary tale: "Hope and Change". If you were of the downtrodden and closed your eyes you'd probably have sworn you could hear each plucking of the harp and heavenly choir in the background. Reality fell far short of the package though, didn't it?
We're not looking to hire the next shift supervisor at the local WalMart Spike; we're looking for the person to place at the helm of our ship of state. I'll always take the person of substance (measurable, quantifiable results in governance) over all the style in the world, hands-down, each and everytime.
For someone who can point out every promise failed to be delivered upon, probably from memory I'm aghast at how willing you are to have Donald Trump ladle out the latest batch of kool aid.
And you wonder why people aren't buying it?
I think Trump's a blowhard. I don't know if he can be trusted. But I KNOW I can't trust the people that the RNC leadship supports. They're proven liars.
I DO like a lot of the things Trump says. If he hadn't said them and called some of these other people out we'd be being fed the same old crap that they've been lying to us about for the past several years.
And if you buy into that sh*t or think that THIS time it'll be different then well....to use your own words...you're stupid.
I've answered the question now on a couple of occasions; that you do not like or disagree with my answer does not alter that fact.
It is ok, not everybody has the courage to speak their truth regardless of who might intentionally misinterpret it.
I'm sorry Spike but you have a conceptual problem with the truth; it isn't yours, mine, KPC's or anyone else's to hold as their interpretive domain; it is universal and applies to all equally.
You have a well-established history of proceeding from a conclusion and then working to back-fill your conclusion with facts; in this regard you have much in common with the man-made global warming crowd.
Also, as with that crowd you have a knack for inserting a persecution complex into any disagreement with your stated position. Surely you have to realize that in any subjective analysis consensus is the exception, not the rule. If you're that thin-skinned that you can't engage in a difference of opinion I suggest you wrestle with that personal demon before engaging in such interactions.
And I found your comment especially ironic given your recent charges against another poster of misrepresentation via the edit function. Let me know when you screw up the courage to either voluntarily admitting the error or soliciting the help of the Bowsite editors who can certainly confirm that post was never edited.
Well said.
For the life of me I cannot fathom how many people here are rightfully disgusted with those elected officials in the GOP who said what folks wanted to hear when they ran for office, then did not follow through once they were elected. Yet they cheerlead for Trump SOLEY based on what he SAYS despite his having NO history of believing what he says. To the contrary, Trump's been on the exact opposite side of the things we care about most here.
UFB!
"And I found your comment especially ironic given your recent charges against another poster of misrepresentation via the edit function."
I thought the exact same thing immediately when I read that.
"Let me know when you screw up the courage to either voluntarily admitting the error or soliciting the help of the Bowsite editors who can certainly confirm that post was never edited."
You know, I know, and Spike knows that's not going to happen. If he asked the moderators for that help, once they told him the post had not been edited, he'd find himself even more publically humiliated than he already is.
Remember now, those are the two choices. Either you vote for one of them or you stay home (or you vote for a third party which is just like staying home).
If you truly believe that Hillary will be better than any of the candidates running on the republican side...well, I'll leave it up to others to determine if that is "stupid" or not..."
KPC...a variation on your post should also be considered (shudder). This would be the same "lesser weasel" choice we have been offered in the recent past by the GoP.
Draft Bill Whittle/2016!
If I had to I would vote for Rubio, but with some serious misgivings due to his amnesty stance.
And I know that you're still unconvinced, but I thought just like you do 4 years ago about the conservatives that didn't vote for Romney, but that's changed over the past few years. I used to say that,
"They may be a-holes but at least they're OUR a holes."
But I've come to realize that if I vote for them again after what they did then I'M the a-hole!!!I
I will never vote again for someone who has us on the exact same path as the Democrats, but is just taking a more indirect route. We need change...BIG change, and we will NOT get it with the Boehners, McConnells, Bushes, Kascichs, etc., just more of the same as they p*ss on our legs.
I'm going to ask the moderators whether or not my post was edited.
I will post the results, if I get one.
That is NOT a good thing for you.
You simply do not get it-you set up a ridiculous scenario; you ask, in a nutshell, "You know Candidate "A" is lying but what are they saying that you like?"
In what world does that question not insult the intelligence of anyone with at least a room temperature IQ? To point out the absurdity of such a question is the only answer it merits; that you do not like having this pointed out does not mean an answer wasn't given.
This isn't a court of law Spike so you don't get to demand a "yes or no" response; that is the perogative of each poster. I have exercised mine to render what I consider to be an appropriate response. What's condescending by the way is your insistence that you deserve that yes or no answer, no matter how absurd the question.
Speaking of being incapable of conceding, physician heal thyself. You leveled charges of "personal attacks" after the opening half-dozen posts on a thread of yours when nothing of the kind were even remotely put forth. Those posts were posted on a few occasions to allow others, both involved and uninvolved to weigh in with their thoughts on the matter. None-NONE agreed with your assessment that any personal attacks were made immediately after your post.
Not only haven't you owned up to your error you continue to double-down on it.
You toss out an accusation at Kyle that he edited a post and have not produced a shred of evidence to support the claim. The fact that 2 people viewed that post prior to your response does not dissuade you despite the (well what should be) obvious reality that Kyle would have no idea what to edit prior to you posting, unless you are declaring him to be capable of mind-reading over great distances.
You haven't conceded that point either, have you?
Speaking of respect, having yours is the least of my concerns; the level you once had with me isn't receding either, it's history.
Followed in no particular order by Rubio, Fiorina, Carson, Trump, Christie, and Huckabee.
No way would I vote for "Act Of Love" Bush. He's definately a charter member of the "Can't/Won't society. And probably also not Kasich.
You can question me all you like, but BS is BS and I'm not buying it anymore.
You gotta be $hittin' me.
The Rock has, can and will put him to sleep whenever he wishes.
If people here were ever intimidated by this self proclaimed in type literary moron you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Have a nice day....
The Rock
I will state that I will NOT vote for my present US Representative (Mike Bishop, R/MI)next November. Not only has he, when he responds, never addressed any of the issues I have brought up, but today he announced support for Bush. I have not decided on which of the 3 options I have left: Democrat, third party or no vote.
I predict that the election will be another "lesser of two weasel" vote when it comes to the Presidency...anybody (or thing) other than Hillary. And I predict that we will not see either Cruz or Trump on the GoP ticket.
says every voter, every election
it's a gotdam shell game, just more serious
rewind 7 years...Hillary would have been a dream
Jeb Bush. At least we KNOW what Hillary is. Either way we'd be screwed if a Bush/Hillary or similar get's it. Just like we were no better off with Boehner as Speaker as we were with Loonie Tunes Nancy. They'll get elected by promising to do all these things for us and then when they get there then all of a sudden it's can't/won't.
Not much difference between them IMO.
Like I said, fool me once and I'm the rube. But you won't do it again.
What time is it at your location at this moment? Did I hear last call? ;-)
The Rock
@SteveDeaceShow @RMConservative: "Trump is the French Revolutio @tedcruz is the American Revolution". Awesome!
— Avrumi Weinberger (@conservadox) November 26, 2015NEITHER ONE of the POS would serve me AT ALL!!!
Here, I'll say it so maybe you can understand it.
My choice between these two is NONE OF THE ABOVE.
If you want to fool yourself and think that Bush would actually do anything to improve or change the situation we are in, ESPECIALLY on illegal immigration, then I question your intelligence.
I will be faced with a Senate choice here in Illinois between Mark Kirk and his Democrat opponent Tammy Duckworth and my choice is the same...none of the above.
It's like making a choice as to whether an assailant is going to cut off my left arm or my right leg. My choice is NEITHER!
I won't vote for Trump in the primary..providing he is still in the running but I would vote for Trump if it came down to him and Hillary or Sanders.
Spike, you are engaging in some serious historical revisionism here to try and prove your conspiratorial point. What actually happened is that Huckabee dropped out on March 4, 2008, by which point he was hopelessly behind McCain in the primary delegate count. I voted for Huckabee, but he lost fair and square, no conspiracy necessary.
America is essentially already unrecognizable from what it was even 20 years ago. You remember how many people were looking for the best country to move to if Bill Clinton got elected? 23 years ago. We're not going to start to get the country back on the right track by nominating another moderate/liberal "Republican". New Boss, same as the old Boss. There's only one candidate in this race I have confidence will get the country moving in the right direction again. All the others are just re-treads or flawed candidates who couldn't even get the nomination much less win the General. Electing Rubio or Bush or Kasich as President will only slightly slow down our demise as a country, it won't turn us around. Having Hillary as President might actually ignite a real 2nd American Revolution. Ted Cruz as President is a good compromise option, I believe he will get the country going in the right direction again, without needing a revolution to get it started.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
Happy Thanksgiving!
But unlike all the pants wetters who claim he's horrible for the process and a horible person to boot, (yet will vote for him if nominated) I appreciate his part in this race because he has changed the narrative better than anyone else has ever been able to as well as taken the early heat off of Cruz - which is exactly what my first post about Trump stated. And you won't. They can't. Those most apoplectic over his very existence run like scalded dogs when faced with their portion of responsibility. As has been stated many times, voting has consequences. When one votes to promote a CINO, we get more CINO's.
Today I give thanks for my family, my friends, my colleagues and our great country, especially those who serve in our military, intelligence, law enforcement and first responder communities to protect us. I give thanks that I was fortunate enough to be born in this wonderful nation, the most magnificent society on the face of the Earth.
Today I also give thanks to the Republican Party, its leaders, and its media. I give thanks to the party's agenda -- in the wake of the Mississippi Senate primary and numerous derogatory remarks -- as it made clear it sought to wage war against us. It is a fact that the Republican establishment seeks to expel conservatives from the party.
Did you drop your Republican registration to express your disgust? Awesome -- you did exactly what the establishment wanted, so you couldn't vote for an insurgent candidate like Donald Trump in your state primary.
Are you a 'Cruz Birther'? Super, you're burning calories on an issue that no legal expert -- on the left or the right -- believes has any validity.
Do you think a President Rubio would lift a finger to seal the border? Pretty cool; but may I suggest that you lay off the psychedelic mushrooms?
Do you believe a President Fiorina, Christie, Kasich or Paul would be any different than Jeb! when it comes to illegal immigration or reducing the size of government? Excellent: I have some land in Whitewater, Arkansas I'd like to sell you --- it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!
My friends, there are only three candidates left in the race who operate outside of the GOP establishment: they are Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.
It's important to understand one, simple fact: should one of these three outsiders become President, they will also become the de facto head of the Republican Party.
That's right: in one fell swoop, an anti-establishment candidate could take over and control the GOP leadership structure, by dint of the bully pulpit and a massive fundraising capability.
As the leader of the party, an outsider President could eviscerate the leadership structure and reorganize the entire, defective mess that is the GOP establishment.
That is what they fear most -- losing their cushy jobs and consultancies and actually having to work for a living. Oh, the humanity!
That's why I'm staying a registered Republican and supporting Cruz, Trump or Carson -- who ever I deem most likely to win at the time.
It's not just to save the Republic from the fiscal and national security timebombs that Obama has bequeathed to us. It's also to shred the entire GOP establishment and lay the foundation for a new Republican Party. A conservative Republican Party that can restore the rule of law, honor the Constitution, and begin flaying the lard off the federal leviathan.
I give thanks to the Republican establishment for declaring war on us. It makes our mission all the more clear; they must be removed from the halls of power.
President Carson, President Cruz, or President Trump could make that appealing vision a reality.
Make sure your Republican registration is up-to-date, so you can support an insurgent candidate. It's the only way to stop these corrupt and feckless boobs who today falsely claim the mantle of "Republicans".
All the best to you and yours on this wonderful holiday. Thank you for patronizing my humble journal and may this season be a blessed one for all of us.
No; it's why I've continued to point out the irrelevance of your scenario in which you set the ground rules as being you know a candidate is lying but as they may strike a chord by pure happenstance you fall all over them in fawning adulation.
Obfuscating would be you have personal animus against Candidate A, they vocalize what you've stated is a core belief yet you refuse to acknowledge they've articulated that belief. You proceed to do so with feats of linguistic ledgerdemain that would make a circus barker's head spin.
I haven't had any need to go that route.
If I thought, or had compelling evidence to believe Mr. Trump had undergone the same fundamental transformation that Ronald Reagan experienced that would be a completely different scenario; that's not the case you're trying to make though.
As this query originates from the unquestioned number one poster who rails against the evils of the eGOP, the two-headed snake and the lesser of two weasels the irony is beyond the pale.
Just because Alice went down the rabbit hole doesn't foster a burning desire in me to follow.
You misunderstood me; the scenario, including the "fawning adulation" refers to the target of your post, not you. "Candidate A" can be anyone; the point is to try to divorce the polarizing Mr. Trump so to try and highlight exactly what it is your posing; take a candidate, ANY candidate, present them to anyone, and tell that "anyone" that the candidate is LYING, so that the audience knows that candidate is lying yet you then ask if that candidate, known to be lying is saying something you (your audience) likes.
Let me put it another way you may be better able to relate to; pick anyone you consider to be an eGOP candidate, let them regale you 24/7 with tales of how they'll roll back Obama's executive orders, repeal Obamacare on Day 1, deport 11 million illegals, etc.
Now if you can tell me you'd view that scenario as ridiculous and we may be on the road to understanding.
In keeping with the above the "linguistic ledgerdemain" was self-directed (that means me, not you) as if I had no other reason aside from a personal one to disagree with a candidate it would require that to convince you or anyone that I had any rational, logical motive for that disagreement. Don't be so quick to read into things.
As to whether you "know or care who Mr. Trump is"' first, it begs the question why then did you pose the hypothetical "is he saying anything you agree with?" Wouldn't that suggest to most that you have at least a passing interest in some aspect of his candidacy? Wouldn't it be equally fair to ask if you felt that way then why wouldn't you agree with me in that his talking points, however palatable are ultimately irrelevant? You seem to be wanting to have it both ways with your thesis.
Being proud of railing against the eGOP is indeed admirable; ask yourself then why you would look askance at anyone staking out the same moral high ground and not buying the line of a snake-oil saleman like Trump.
Again, this appears to put you in the position of arguing both sides of the issue.
And finally, again you read yourself into the rabbit hole comment; that was squarely directed at Mr. Trump.
Anony Mouse's Link
DILBERT CREATOR: TRUMP ‘INVULNERABLE’ IF BEATS DISABILITY FLAP
"...Dilbert creator Scott Adams said Friday afternoon that if Donald Trump survives the ongoing controversy about whether he made fun of New York Times reporter’s disability, he will be a lock to win the presidency..."
More and reasoning at link.
Trump isn't even a lock to still be in the race when Iowa votes, much less to win the GOP nomination or the General election.
How were you wrong? Still 2 months till Iowa votes. Only thing Trump has won so far is the most free media.
I'll concede this forum isn't always suited to clarity; that being said you do seem to take things directed inwardly or at others as pointed towards you.
In the case of the quote you pulled though it was targeted towards you-I'm reversed the scenario and cast in an example I thought you might be better able to relate to.
You do have the meaning of "palatable" correct as applied towards you in this instance, though it could target the broader audience too. Unfortunately you miss the point that literal honey poured into the ear is a poor dressing for the knife that will soon find your back.
Again, as someone who has systematically torn down the eGOP for that very thing I'm astonished you consistently miss that very same point when it references Mr. Trump.
I'm starting to think KPC had it nailed when he attributes that stubborness to your unwillingness to concede when you've either made a point poorly or had none to begin with.
As to "deference" I'd be happier if you defer to common sense; you might amaze yourself with how quickly you recongize the quicksand you're standing on.
He hasn't won a darn thing yet, and he won't be the nominee.
FACT: He's still very much in the race, and in most polls he's leading.
Whether or not he becomes the nominee is your opinion and you may very well be correct.
Duplicates my sentiment when a few years ago people here asked me why I disliked the Republicans so much.
I KNOW the Demons are going to stab me in the back! The Republicans were supposed to be on MY side! That is why!
You might recognize the words above Spike. The quote is from Woods Walker and you not only wholeheartedly concur with his statement you expand on your answer to let everyone know the viewpoint is one you've held for some time now.
You are very clear in stating what your expectations are of the Republicans who have not conducted themselves as you would have expected.
Thank you for so eloquently articulating exactly what I have said in regard to Mr. Trump and your question about his saying anything I like. I think in your own words you have hit that nail squarely on the head.
Now if you can connect the dots......
Yep, which means he's no closer to being the nominee than any other candidate to this point, regardless of what the polls say.
Uh....I don't think so!
Nope, what I'm saying is the Trump "polling" juggernaut means absolutely nothing until it turns into actual votes, and I don't believe that will happen. I'll make the prediction right now, with no hesitation, that Cruz will win the Iowa Caucus and Trump - if he's still in the race - may not place any better than 3rd or 4th.
If Cruz keeps going steadily up in the Iowa polls, and passes Trump at some point, the current narrative about Trump being unstoppable is going to start to falter, especially because Cruz, unlike Carson, will have more staying power once he reaches the peak. When Cruz actually wins the Iowa Caucus, the narrative about Trump is really going to start to falter. When Santorum surprised everyone by winning the Iowa Caucus in 2012, his polling support in New Hampshire doubled practically overnight.
Things can and frequently do change drastically almost overnight based on the results of the Iowa Caucus. Multiple candidates will likely drop out, the field starts to consolidate, and you just never know what is going to happen. That doesn't even really take into account the fact that supposedly nearly 50% of Iowa and NH voters polled say that they don't fully make up their mind about who they'll support, until a week before they actually vote.
Trump won't have proved a thing to anyone unless he starts winning primaries, and winning them at anywhere close to the numbers his "polling" support showed he had.
At the moment the only person having difficulty with a concept is you; and to be blunt I don't think it's so much a difficulty in connecting the dots as an unwillingness to accpept that they lead exactly to the ground you staked out (and have for years) for which I pulled your post from another thread to highlight.
As you indicated you have your filters set after years of history of hearing one thing and witnessing another. You have made this abundantly clear. The simple fact of the matter is you seem unwilling to accept that others may reach a similar conclusion in simialr scenarios albeit with different players. The key point is the game remains the same.
Again, I sincerely doubt the point escapes you; it seems where history is concerned you have one as well-that of staking out positions, some of which wind up in the light of day as ill-conceived. When those occasional hiccups are surfaced it seems you'd rather dig in and argue than simply admit the poor choice.
Whenever (if ever) you choose to let that go you'll be better served than to continue to make it everyone else's fault.
In the event I'm still not being clear I've no intention of allowing you a free pass; not when you demand the high road of others whilst walking several steps lower.
Condescending tone aside there is ample evidence to the contrary; the base overwhelmingly rejected the establishment candidates in 2008 (McCain) and 2012 (Romney) and if anything are rejecting by an even wider margin the 2016 establishment candidate (Jeb Bush).
Evidence seems to point to a significant portion of the base not buying the establishment line so one would rightly question the effectiveness of an establishment "dumbing down" of their base, wouldn't one?
This may be the root of the problem. I never in my life did that. I am willing to bet that many others here never did either.
If you are assuming that everyone who votes republican does as you did, then you are assuming too much.
Is it possible that you hold yourself in disdain (for being so much like the typical leftist voter) and want the rest of us to accompany you? We refuse, you get frustrated, ranting ensues.
Michigan has only one congressman that cannot be considered to be part of the eGOP: Justin Amash who has a Conservative Review rating of A (95). He is the only MI conservative and I wish he were mine.
Mine is Mike Bishop...a lying Boehnerite of the finest kind. As I have stated previously, he was given the nod to replace Mike Rogers (another GoP disappointment)who campaigned as a Constitutional Conservative, yet has voted greater than 80% with the eGoP line. He is rated as an F.
All the rest of the other MI reps also rate of F.
The failure of the national party to even present an image of living up to the promise of resisting Obama created the perfect environment for Trump. Months ago, when his popularity was seen rising, the members of Congress could still have presented some sort of effort to live up to the promises made in 2012 and 2014. The best they could do is replace Boehner with what appears to be a younger version with Ryan. As Iowa and the primaries come closer and closer, there is little time for the GoP to show that their "more approved" candidate will be able to do other than make more promises.
I sure hope that somehow Cruz can win the nomination as he is obviously the much better choice. But he is just like Trump in the eyes of the beltway/donor GoP--a movement candidate. And the NRC has changed its nominating rules to prevent such a nominee.
I truly believe that the national Republican Party will in 2016 snatch defeat from the mouth of victory. Their only hope is that Hillary faces major charges WRT her lies, selling of influence as SOS, Behghazi, etc. such that the Democrats have to find a stand in at last moment.
At present, CA's decision to issue drivers licenses to any and all illegals will allow fraudulent voting...and ensure that Hillary has 20% of the electoral votes needed before any voting takes place.
Ted will be everything everybody wanted but not in the WH.
So what did we prove? That there is no second place winner in a gunfight and the best man lost. Oh yes I almost forgot. Trump would have taken a larger beating. Like that helps.
Best be praying something comes down on that witch because like joshauf said: Polls don't mean a thing.
The Rock
HA/KS's Link
With Ted Cruz we are presented with a highly intelligent orator who believes everything that he claims in his offerings. He is a conservative and appeals with his values to conservative thinkers. He is classy and likeable ( that is to his audience) and would also appear to resist from slandering anyone unless he was proceeded and slandered first. Ted Cruz, I believe to be a sincere and more than qualified candidate against whomever the candidate choice of either side. He has the tools the mannerisms and deep seated strength to carry his promises to Washington as stated. He is unequivocally the best that could ever be assembled on the conservative side of which to vote. He would not " get down in the dirt" with Hillary Clinton where all his success could very well be. Ted Cruz is above that style of politics. One candidate and one candidate only would treat and smear Hillary Clinton with disdain like the $2 bitch she is in street terms. That is Donald Trump. No one else.
Now questions must be placed forward as to what policies may actually be accomplished should Ted Cruz ascend the throne. Promises easily voiced with enthusiasm while campaigning to win the candidacy, receptive to conservatives who are humming, "happy days are here again" are understood. The tune most appropriately to be sung when actual legislation is passed in the narrow conservative ideology. This scenario can not and will not occur. Ted Cruz indeed would have both houses at this time, but most importantly not in his pocket. His slash and burn politics while seated and a reviled inside the beltway disruptor, will neutralize the good that he would attempt to have passed. Concessions will have had to be made that would dilute his policies to barely recognizable and rankle his base. The tune now being hummed by constituents " over the barrel and through our shorts once again we go". What tune are you humming now. Right now?
Ted Cruz is unequivocally the best that could ever be assembled on the conservative side of which to vote...but... and a big but it is..Ted Cruz would not " get down in the dirt" with Hillary Clinton where all his success could very well be. Ted Cruz is above that style of politics. One candidate and one candidate only would treat and smear Hillary Clinton with disdain like the $2 bitch she is in terms of which she is unaccustomed. That is Donald Trump. No one else. Ted Cruz is a scalpel. Donald Trump is a wrecking ball. When you are facing someone like Hillary Clinton with such thick skin you must literally knock them off their feet to break through and expose them. A nick here and a nick there will not get it done.
Trump in the WH? Yes. Under one condition. Ted Cruz at his side to round out the curves and potholes of Washington. Donald Trump's Dick Cheney. Good cop bad cop. The unpredictable, stroked by a convincing predictable calming force. I believe them to be a most formidable team to get things truly accomplished.
Donald Trump would need Ted Cruz to be his voice coming from Ted Cruz's intellectual ability and delivery. Ted Cruz would Donald Trump's teacher.
In effect Ted Cruz would be the VP in title only.
Shame it is just a pipe dream.....well
The Rock
Anony Mouse's Link
I really think a lot of conservatives who have been hoping for a conservative nominee would stay home. I think Cruz is the one who would bring high numbers to the polls - on both sides (both to vote for and to vote against).
It is possible that some who are traditionally democrat voters might stay home if they know hilary is not the answer but cannot bring themselves to vote for a republican.
Anony Mouse's Link
Before the media has a chance to turn its big guns on Cruz, he'll have closed the distance on Hillary via the debates, and he'll slice and dice her up on virtually every issue.
Cruz brings a knife to a gun fight and wins.
