He stood on his principles in not endorsing Trump, and shredded his principles by going back on his word and signature. He can't have it both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Printable View
He stood on his principles in not endorsing Trump, and shredded his principles by going back on his word and signature. He can't have it both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Darrell can speak for himself, but I was thinking the same thing about Cruz. I've got my problems with Trump (last night's speech sounded like a less optimistic Nixon--George Wallace?), but IMHO you don't speak at the nominating convention if you're not willing to endorse the candidate being nominated. Cruz should've done what many of the other non-endorsing candidates did and just stay away.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
George Bush stood on his principles by not agreeing to go. When you accept the invitation to speak, you cannot sabotage the party. That exhibits very poor character and principles.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Exactly. Better said than I did, Keith.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
I think there's a good chance you are correct here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
That's because I believe out nation is stronger than one man or womanQuote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
I happen to agree with you Keith, but Darrell criticized Cruz for doing exactly what Darrell is doingQuote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
I was a long time supporter of Cruz, even though I wanted Walker to win the primary, but the last several months I started having bad feelings about Cruz. There was something behind that smirk that I began to distrust. To me he is hoping to sabotage Trumps campaign and Trump lose so he.Cruz. Can run in 4 years. He us finished nationally and more than likely in Texas because he won't be able to get anything done in the senate for the rest of his term
Keith, BEvans, and I are correct in criticizing Ted Cruz for accepting the podium and sabotaging the campaign. I have far more principles than that. I would not accept a position of support and do what he did. Bush and Kasich were principled men. So am I.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Your insistence on suggesting my refusal to vote for a candidate I find despicable is the same thing is beyond bizarre. It's not only not "the same thing," it is diametrically opposed to that position.
I think the electorate is seeing a side of Cruz that has been a common sight in the Senate. I always found it odd that Jeff Sessions threw his early support to Trump and not Cruz. This week has shown me why. Trump seems to be very well liked by those who know him, and his kids seem to be very well grounded for kids that grew up rich or poor. Cruz is more of a lone wolf that deserves the tag, "doesn't play well with others."Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Most importantly, Sorry for the sad times you are going through Bigsky. God bless.
-----------------------------------------------
I,d refuse to sit on a powder keg and spit at firecrackers if I were a Republican.
To trust Trump with the future of our children is a huge risk. He can save his own no matter what major mistake he makes with another nuclear power...yours would be just a part of his failed attempt to run the world.
And if one wants to see a racial face off? Well he is the proven racist candidate....but.the outcome will be devastating to all of us. Trump is no more than an insane gamble from any angle. The day this nation becomes a subsidiary of Trump enterprises, will be the day our nation dies.
That is the left wing propaganda view being espoused by the liberals, who fear Trump will cut off their gravy train.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
Save our country for the ruin Hillary will bring, vote for Trump. What has the left brought us? Extreme regulations that make it impossible for businesses that hire people to be created. The worlds highest corporate tax rate, which has made businesses flock to other shores, taking manufacturing jobs with them. They gave us eight years of near zero growth, and wages that aren't stagnant, but losing ground. Higher health care premiums with less coverage. They brought us the incredibly shrinking middle class, anyone who has read the ramblings of the left knows the goal is to destroy the middle class. They have brought us the poorest race relations in my memory. The left has double our national debt in just seven years, and would have added more to it had Americans not booted them out of the majority.
Trumps' average donation is $50, he funded the primary campaign out of pocket. Hillary's average donation is much higher and she has taken in tens of millions in corporate cash.
Right wing propaganda is served (spewed) here constantly. Some of it scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
And to dine with the gang, one is nearly forced to eat or suffer veiled personal attacks
The difference is that in this case, this is how I feel and is not born of a hate for our country's current and past democratic leaders..or any other. My fears aren't limited to lwe "liberals" alone , but to anyone who isn't blinded by party loyalty...thus we see similar hesitation even from conservatives on this forum. I hope that is a trend repeated nationally for all our sakes.
As for the economic stability this country currently enjoys, anyone can see if not admit we rebounded from the brink of unprecedented disaster under this administration. How that has been accomplished may not suit the opposition, but can't rationally be denied
I have zero fear about Trump and the whole doomsday nuclear war thing. That was all trotted out for Reagan as well. Yes he's erratic in his comments, whereas for Reagan it was his sabre rattling, but it's the same concept.
First, Trump has shown no such erratic behavior in his business affairs that we know about, and that's the real measure here. Bluster and short talk is one thing, actually taking action is vastly different.
But most important, its not like the President can just wake up one day and launch nuclear weapons. Not only by law, but I just don't believe anyone would ever carry out such orders out of the blue.
Trump is blustering and very much everything I dislike about New Yorkers and Yankees in general in his behavior, but New Yorkers, even obnoxious ones, aren't more likely to go to war than anyone else.
Oh, it can be quite rationally denied. It's the "things were bad at point A thinking, now at point B this is better, so the policies between must be good ones" approach that has us in such a mess, both from policies on the right and left. It's simply a poor way to approach economics b/c by definition economies are moving targets.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
it would have taken nearly barbaric mistakes for us to actually NOT be at least somewhat better off. The 2008 bubble bust was far from "unprecedented", in fact it's a pretty regular cycle, in this case brought on mostly by government intervention in the housing market.
But the recovery has been anemic by historic standards, in fact the most tepid recovery in US history, and that was due largely to the vastly growing debt and regulations.
You won't believe any of that and that's OK, but it is the case. Obama gets no more credit for a recovery than I'd have given to Bush I or II for their reign b/c none of them have done anything except get in the way of the natural process of what is left of the US market system recovering. The market is doing that itself, not government, they're just slowing it down.
but this nation will eventually collapse under its own weight thanks to the liberalism of the last 60 years. Less than half of Americans actually contribute anything to the economy or pay any taxes, and they are carrying the weight for everyone. As that group shrinks, and it is is always shrinking, and the other grows, the failure is inevitable.
It interesting to hear liberals voice concern about an unstable Trump yet support a guy who has allowing and sanctioned a nuclear Iran. Guess it's because of all the stable leadership in Terhan
He had impeccable advice from the Secretary of State. Dictators may be crazy as loons and in that respect not stable, but they generally rule a country for a long, long time
Via e-mail??Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
People really think the US will start the next massive war? We will only start it by having acted badly enough to let another nation get in position to start it, not b/c we just launched missiles by random one day.
At least let's say that the odds are vastly higher that we'll cause it through inaction and policy, not through a direct attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
The Republican Party is in disarray for a reason . Similar doubts and concerns extend to the well informed right. That speaks volumes imo.
Racist???? The man hires black women for mgt positions, do you realize that. He had a gay man speak at the convention. He had blacks speak at the convention. He talked of defending gays.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
You spill the DNC talking points straight up. Hillary is a proven liar to congress, to the American people, and the parents of those killed in Libya. She is a proven crook who will screw everyone and anyone for money. She sat back and allowed her husband to sexually assault women. She hates the military. Will open this country to hundreds and possibly thousands of terrorists posing as refugees and ISIS has said they will do it. Her foreign work was an utter disaster. She wants an open border, not because she cares about those people but they are voted, votes to allow her to keep her power and continue her crooked ways. And you openly support that???? At least you admit to supporting her unlike others who do but won't admit it
BE, as a lawyer and person I have admired for a long time , you have really shocked me with your decision. Darrell didn't but you did
So let's throw out Trump, foreign affairs, immigration, economy, security, military, terrorists, attacks on Christianity
Let's talk one thing only. The Supreme Court. As a lawyer are you telling us
You are a liberal and want the court to go hard left as a result of a Hillary win
Or you could care less how the court looks.
You are willing or want the court to go left with the ability to totally change this country and its laws. Forget the 2nd amendment that means so much to citizen, sun at, Dan, Keith and myself. You are okay with the court trashing the constitution on any item they so desire with no recourse, you are ok with gambling your children and all grand children's future. For sone reason I thought you were a Christian, must have been wrong because you are willing to allow the left with the court to do great harm to Christians for generations if not forever.
You see, you are not one vote. You are many. You will have influence on others, one, five, fifteen, who knows. And they in turn influence how many. Your one no vote with your influence on others could result in thousands of people not voting, writing in a person who can't win or voting for Hillary. A no vote, write in vote same as voting for Hillary and oh how she so wants people to do just that. She doesn't care if you vote for her or not, as long as you don't vote for Ztrump.
And as a lawyer you are willing to give her the court, the highest level of your profession
Jefferson predicted this, that those like you would do this and what can happen
Only God can help us and He probably wont
I have read some bad things about Trump here by people who don't know him or paid attention to what those that do have said about him. He may not be a devout Chridtian but he does things quietly for people that more Christians shoułd be doing
Some might say that Christie, Rudy, Sessions, Carson, Newt only say positive things about Trump to get a position with his administration. I don't think these men would do that. They are very smart individuals that have met with Trump, probably asked tough questions, are not the type to be easily fooled and yet each endorsed him after those sessions. But throw those out if you want, I won't because I trust them. But as a golfer I have heard from Jack Nicklause, Natalie Gulbis, Christie Kerr, all professional golfers who have nothing to gain publicly or some title. I respect each for what they have accomplished in golf and business. Each have endorsed trump..good enough foe me
Color me as the uninformed then.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
The GOP is in disarray b/c the establishment is losing control and honestly b/c they didn't put in a super-delegate system that allowed the party leaders to rig things to eliminate candidates they don't want to win. Had the DNC not had them and Sanders had gotten traction and won they'd be showing a lot of the same fraying.
but it's about power and control, not the scare tactic of Trump having his finger on some imaginary button that ends the world. That's the same stuff they trotted out for Reagan in 1980 and I listened to 8 years of how his next move was going to cause a nuclear war. Not unsurprisingly, that's a really really high threshold.
THe fit Trump is giving those folks is he's not one of them.
I will say I have little worry about Clinton going to war with Russia. They're one of her largest donors.
I did not call you uninformed anymore than you would call anti Trump conservatives here and elsewhere the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
My point remains.
You said informed people on the right share your view, that means uninformed people do not, implicitly bc of their failure to be informed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
I was just having fun w that part, but the idea that I'd take issue w anti trump conservatives is false. I'll Argue they should vote for him but I'd rather have had almost any other of the 16 candidates.
But trump has plenty of warts without having to speculate and say he's going to kill our children in a made up nuclear war.
I got nothing to add or detract from national politics. Even at a state level, the people we send to the Republican convention, mostly, werent the people I recognized from R party when I got into "Reagan's big tent". They've folded up that tent.
Jazy, I'm disappointed you're not disappointed in Darrell, too. I like to think we're equally disappointing. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
The Supreme Court argument is compelling on its face, but for me it ultimately fails for the same reason that Trump's neo-populist approach also fails.
As with many aspects of the Presidency, on judicial/legal matters Trump himself has no coherent philosophy except for how he can use it to bend the system to his will*. (See, for example, his position on changing the 1st Amendment to make it easier for public figures to make defamation cases, or his position on having the military violate the law of war when he orders them to).
I have no confidence that Trump will produce reliably conservative candidates. To do that you have to believe Trump is reliable and conservative, and he's neither.
And for those who believe he'll be reined in by Pence or whomever else, all you have to do is check out his spectacle of a press conference yesterday where less than 24 hours after accepting his party's nomination, he used that all-important time to once again go after Ted Cruz and argue his dad might have been associated with the JFK assassination. My guess is Pence (who was standing behind him in the familiar Chris Christie position) had to be wondering what he got himself into.
This is a guy who said his sister (who favors partial birth abortion) would be a great Supreme Court justice.** He nominally backed away from that after he was called on it (as he did with his statement that he would give military illegal orders that they would obey, "believe me"), but IMHO it's more likely he backs away from these startlingly disturbing positions not because he has changed his mind, but because he was called on them.
So for anyone who's confident in anything Trump will do on judicial issues, I'll just say you're more confident than I am. Those who feel compelled to vote for Trump as the "Not-Hillary," I understand that position and won't try to talk you out of it. I still find both candidates unfit to hold office and can't vote for either.
*--Some will say "Yeah, but Obama's that way, too!" I didn't like it when he did it, either. "2 wrongs," etc.
**--BTW, Trump's speech was the longest since 1972. Number of times he mentioned abortion or pro-life issues: 0.
Points well taken, but to read the above implication into my words a person would seemingly have to believe anyone who disagrees is uninformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
To be clear, I believe that one can be informed and quite capable of distrusting Trump from an informed perspective. Both conservative, liberal, as well as middle of the road.
If I intended to imply anything, it is that disgruntled republicans can be just as informed as the "trumpeteers"
P.S.
My point remains that, in this of all elections, conservatives who might abstain from participating in the process because of the republican candidate, should support the thought that Mr. trump is a particularly dangerous choice.
And that in turn lends at least partial support to my own fears, strengthening the argument against your candidate..
I dunno', perhaps I'll abstain from voting myself. But my concerns are of a different nature with this man than any other candidate in history.
"It" feels like something from 1934 to me. Only a much more powerful entity wanting ultimate power and ethnic cleansing.
I agree, which is why I said Trump was the wrong man at the right time. The nation would revel in a Reagan-inspired candidate, a man like Trump who is an outsider.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsky
Instead we get Trump, a populist defined by his very lack of definition, and Hillary, perhaps the most corrupt candidate since the turn of the last century. It's a pretty depressing election no doubt.
I'm disappointed for all of us, does that help? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by KSRBEvans
I agree with every word, and no I can't guarantee Trump will nominate someone I like.
I do think he has come out with a list of names that are solid, and don't include crazy choices like relatives, but there's no guarantee that's how it will go.
But I KNOW who Hillary will pick, and I'm sure I will hate those choices. whereas with Trump there's a better than 50/50 chance I'll be OK with them b/c he'll want to nominate someone who helps him politically and that will be a more strict constructionist person. Not a guarantee, but decently likely.
No, neither candidate is fit to hold office. It's unreal it's come to this, certainly the worst election choices going back more than a century.
The problem is that one of them will still take and hold that office. I'd rather it be someone more influenced by conservatives than Hillary Clinton. Esp. with the SCOTUS picks as long as the GOP has a majority we have a solid chance of getting at least a moderate on the bench. With Hillary a moderate would be our best case scenario, and I dont' think it's very likely.
I've heard stories about Trump doing really nice things for complete strangers who were in need, or who went out of their way to help him or others. Included among these are his paying off mortgages.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
I found this to be ironic, Republicans were the party of optimism not envy, who looked to the future instead of clinging to the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsky
In this article the author writes about how she herself is clinging to the past.
The establishment politicians need to go.
I'm not so sure that Trump isn't the right guy at the right time. Do we really want an ideologue who is inflexible at this point in time? Trump is more of a pragmatic problem solver who is untethered by the monetary influences and special unterest groups that subjugate most politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Trump seems less wed to social issues, and more focused on the issues of security and economics; two issues most important to voters.
Hillary is beholden to the left to nominate a liberal. Trump is at least on record as wanting to nominate a Scalia type Constitutionalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Brian, Trump has already given us his list of judges, Mick is very high on the one from Ala and after reading his credentials I understand why.
I won't give up my vote, not in an election this critical for the nation, my granddaughters and my church along with mu rights
Look how nutty the left is, Kerry says my AC and refrig is as dangerous as ISIS. And those people will select the court.
IMO McCain was much worse than Trump and Romney was further left then Trump, I held my nose and voted for both
You're right. I don't want to be a racist, and I don't want the world to explode! What do I do? I guess I'll vote for Hillary, because that would mean I'm not a racist, right? I think that's how it works. At least that what you, and every democrat says. Because their aren't any other reasons to vote for or against candidates. Nope. Just "world go boom, omg!" or "I hate black people so I'm going to vote for a privileged, aristocratic white woman." I'm sold. Hillary for president!Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
Jazy couldn't figure out what character and principle mean, as he has an agenda of attacking yours truly. The principle is there, and shared by good and decent men.
I won't cast a vote for the vile Hillary Clinton, who should be on trial and eventually, in jail. I do place my faith and trust that making principled decisions will lead to a good result, even if it is bitter in the short term.
Jazy, you can resume your regular attacks now.