Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on April 29, 2016, 09:48:39 PM
-
He is all about the deals as we all know.
Can the constitutionalists and libertarian branch apply enough pressure to him to get a good enough deal to promote high turnout among that part of the base?
He will need every constituency on the right to beat whoever takes Hillary's place after she bows out due to legal and/or health issues.
Maybe Cruz already knows this and is hanging tough in order to leverage the best deal.
Just sitting here pondering, maybe I'm way off base but I think not.
-
Someone of der Buchface today opined that this election season is like living in a Left Behind novel.
-
The absolute alienation from the system so many of us are feeling is probably the most healthy and realistic take on the situation we've ever held.
-
Everyone has talked about "Trump's Plateau" with the voters. Yet, no one has mentioned Hillary's. There's a huge enthusiasm gap on the D side. The vast majority of the Bernbots aren't going to turn around in November and vote for Hillary, they'll be sitting at home. Their love for Bernie is only equaled in their hatred for her. I've heard more then a few refer to Hillary as "Nixon in a pantsuit." I would not be surprised if those that go to the polls break for Trump.
Remember there's a ~7% margin of favoritism toward the D presidential in most polls.
-
Can you imagine when Trump becomes the titular head of the R party? The nominee becomes the leader, win lose or draw. And if he wins, we won't have to worry about a RINO congress because the majority of them will have their heads explode and Tea Party folks will get appointed to take their place. Poetic justice. You heard it here first. :old:
-
Hilary makes Nixon look honest and forthright by comparison. I don't really think there is a comparison.
-
Everyone has talked about "Trump's Plateau" with the voters. Yet, no one has mentioned Hillary's. There's a huge enthusiasm gap on the D side. The vast majority of the Bernbots aren't going to turn around in November and vote for Hillary, they'll be sitting at home. Their love for Bernie is only equaled in their hatred for her. I've heard more then a few refer to Hillary as "Nixon in a pantsuit." I would not be surprised if those that go to the polls break for Trump.
Remember there's a ~7% margin of favoritism toward the D presidential in most polls.
Remember that most of these polls are of "likely voters", meaning folks who are most likely to vote regardless. HRC will be POTUS unless the AG has a major brain fade and actually indicts her.
In the meantime, sit back and enjoy the primary theater. It is certainly entertaining.
-
If anti-Trump repubs can hold their noses and vote for Trump then anti-Hillary dems can hold their nose and vote for Hillary. Don't kid yourself, the other side plays the same "can't let the other guy get in!" game as your side.
As for polls this early in the race, historically a whole lot changes in the final months of a race.
-
If anti-Trump repubs can hold their noses and vote for Trump then anti-Hillary dems can hold their nose and vote for Hillary. Don't kid yourself, the other side plays the same "can't let the other guy get in!" game as your side.
As for polls this early in the race, historically a whole lot changes in the final months of a race.
Though I will say there is a LOT of left hate for Clinton. An amount that is surprising to me.
I occasionally read the liberal rag from the liberalville where I used to live, just to check that my blood pressure monitor still works. I read an opinion piece a couple of days ago by a feminist who went off on Hillary, as well as "feminists" like Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem who insisted women vote for Clinton because she's a woman. Her editorial was pretty much "Bernie or no one", and the comments were running around 10 to 1 in the writer's favor, with most of the commenters adding their own "Hillary sucks" data points. A common theme was, "Yes to a woman president, no to this woman".
I totally get that many dems do what many R's do, and vote the "hold my nose" ballot, but I don't remember there being this much left side Hillary hate when she was up against Obama. Some of what I'm seeing now indicates that the left (at least far left) sees her as practically a Republican, and certainly as a liar*. That can certainly make some of them sit this one out or else go third party or write-in.
* I also think this is where Sanders really hurts her. Though I disagree with about 90% of what Sanders says, I respect that he pretty much says what he means so I know where I stand with him. Clinton says whatever she thinks she needs to say, and the contrast between the two is very evident, even to the left.
-
Though I will say there is a LOT of left hate for Clinton. An amount that is surprising to me.
My Mom told me that she was voting for Trump- a week ago.
She's a lifelong liberal democrat who supported Hillary in the past.
She told me "Hillary is a criminal and Bernie is a nutjob, but Trump is pretty decent."
-
If anti-Trump repubs can hold their noses and vote for Trump then anti-Hillary dems can hold their nose and vote for Hillary. Don't kid yourself, the other side plays the same "can't let the other guy get in!" game as your side.
As for polls this early in the race, historically a whole lot changes in the final months of a race.
I don't think so. The Bernbots are all about the free stuff. And he is their Glorious Leader.* His supporters are the mostly young-ish college types and 20-30 somethings that voted in mass for Obama. I can't see them holding their noses and voting for Hillary. She's not one of "them". She's not young and hip (neither is Bernie, but he's "new". I have several Bernbots that are friends on FB (and IRL), like Ben said. They will mostlyh sit home come election day. If anything, they'll break for Trump, because they hate Hillary more.
*- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYutwjbM5ik
-
Consider that those D's and Libs who hate Hillary would vote for Trump. Why? Because the more GOPe and Cruz go after Trump as a Hillary clone, but not as hateful as Hillary, they'll vote Trump because they believe he will continue the leftist lean in spite of what he says. I think this is what all the pundits are missing.
-
My Mom told me that she was voting for Trump- a week ago.
She's a lifelong liberal democrat who supported Hillary in the past.
She told me "Hillary is a criminal and Bernie is a nutjob, but Trump is pretty decent."
This is what I've been hearing as well, from life long democrats.
Also, even the one who will vote for Hilary while holding her nose, doesn't mind Trump. It's too bad he didn't decide to run for the democratic ticket, he probably would have done just as well against Hilary as he has in the Republican race.
-
This is what I've been hearing as well, from life long democrats.
Also, even the one who will vote for Hilary while holding her nose, doesn't mind Trump. It's too bad he didn't decide to run for the democratic ticket, he probably would have done just as well against Hilary as he has in the Republican race.
I was also surprised by the number of life-long, Cook County Democrats, especially ones that would be considered part of "The Machine", (.gov employees and the like, even Teachers) that came right out (or just hinted) that they would vote Trump in General Election while I did their taxes. That's where I think the big surprise will be. Those Blue-Collar, Reagan Democrats are going to break hard for Trump and there's a lot of them out there, of all colors. The working class black vote especially. They know that the the illegals are taking their jobs, you just don't hear about their discontent in the MSM. Neither Hillary nor Bernie are "one of them" especially Hillary.
-
If Trump pulls out the nomination, and HRC doesn't get indicted, I'm writing in SMOD for the election.
-
If anti-Trump repubs can hold their noses and vote for Trump then anti-Hillary dems can hold their nose and vote for Hillary. Don't kid yourself, the other side plays the same "can't let the other guy get in!" game as your side.
Except that our side is still busily playing the "anybody but Trump" game, calling on Trump to change his positions to "unify" with the party rather than calling on the party to stop trying to prevent the [almost] inevitable and to unify behind Trump. The powers that be behind the R party just can't accept that what Trump is selling is what a big chunk of the American people (other than the die-hard Dems) want to buy.
-
If Trump gets the nomination. How do you think the media will change in their coverage of Trump? If you watch now, a lot of news channels are 24/7 Trump.
-
"...you just don't hear about their discontent in the MSM."
I bet there is a lot you don't hear from the MSM about the D/Lib/Left discontent with Hillary. The MSM is Hillary's campaign team. The won't print anything troublesome to their cause unless they absolutely have to. My view is that the general public has absolutely no idea about what the real political pulse of America is.
-
Thinking about this more, Clinton has not been shy about her anti-gun message. It has been some years since a candidate ran with an openly anti-gun message. If she keeps that up into the Fall, I think that would draw out a lot of support for whoever runs against her.
-
As I've said before - I can see trump pulling in the 'anti-establishment' votes from the liberals as well as the conservatives.
He's not particularly conservative, which will enable even liberals to vote for him.
In some ways, running, and winning, as a republican is a masterstroke - he gains the support of everybody to the right of him, and is still encroaching on the left.
We're seeing a lot of Trump hate, but once Bernie loses, and it becomes yet another Establishment vs Non-Establishment contest, what's going to happen? There's lots of people pissed with the 'establishment', on both the right and the left. You know, the people making Animal House references, 'new boss same as old boss', and all that?
-
Thinking about this more, Clinton has not been shy about her anti-gun message. It has been some years since a candidate ran with an openly anti-gun message. If she keeps that up into the Fall, I think that would draw out a lot of support for whoever runs against her.
That will be an interesting aspect. Usually they try to moderate their agenda during the campaign, and I think when she ran against Obama she was barely leaning to the gun control side. All the rhetoric out of her camp now is extremely anti-gun. I think anti enough that even many Perazzi shooters will take pause.
-
That will be an interesting aspect. Usually they try to moderate their agenda during the campaign, and I think when she ran against Obama she was barely leaning to the gun control side. All the rhetoric out of her camp now is extremely anti-gun. I think anti enough that even many Perazzi shooters will take pause.
I'd expect her to shut up about it during the general election. I've heard that recently she's shifted to going after Trump, which is a good indicator that she considers Bernie beat. With that, I wouldn't be surprised if she shuts up about it, because it's yet one more thing that Trump can use to ensure people get out and vote for him.
-
Except that our side is still busily playing the "anybody but Trump" game, calling on Trump to change his positions to "unify" with the party rather than calling on the party to stop trying to prevent the [almost] inevitable and to unify behind Trump. The powers that be behind the R party just can't accept that what Trump is selling is what a big chunk of the American people (other than the die-hard Dems) want to buy.
They, and Trump's supporters, have done the same thing to the other candidate.
-
The Democrats have treated Bernie Sanders like crap from the very beginning. I'm hoping he runs as an independent. As much as I dislike Trump, I despise "That Woman." Bernie running as an independent would pretty much guarantee that she goes home a loser...and hopefully stays there, never to be heard from again.
-
Hilary makes Nixon look honest and forthright by comparison. I don't really think there is a comparison.
Nixon ended the draft and US military involvement in Vietnam shortly before I graduated from high school and turned 18 . . . I'll forgive him a lot for that.
Hillary (and, for that matter, Bill) never did anything that affected me in a positive way. :mad:
Oh, and did anyone catch the George Will editorial in which he says that the best thing conservatives can do is make sure that Trump - if he's the nominee - loses in all 50 states? :facepalm:
-
I refuse to vote for Trump. My principles will not be sold out for him.
I also predict many will line up to pull the (R) because they've been conditioned to do so, despite him not being a fundamentalist or establishment wonk or neocon hawk or whatever other box they're looking to have checked. I thought that he'd be the death of the Grand Old Party, but now I'm not sure.
-
Hillary will not pick up a good portion of Bernies base. They will write him in or sit home and eat brownies. Because he isn't any more a democrat than Trump is a republican. He's a socialist, and so is his base. Hillary for all her faults isn't quite a socialist, not in a way that will work for his base at least.
Trump on the other hand will at least pick up the hold your nose demographic, and I predict the blue collar democrat sorts will swing hard for him. To the point he may end up with half a chance, even after the fraud factor. Depending on his tone he may even pick up some of the minority vote.
We live in interesting and depressing times.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
I refuse to vote for Trump. My principles will not be sold out for him.
I also predict many will line up to pull the (R) because they've been conditioned to do so, despite him not being a fundamentalist or establishment wonk or neocon hawk or whatever other box they're looking to have checked. I thought that he'd be the death of the Grand Old Party, but now I'm not sure.
This is the first presidential election where I really feel like I have no dog in the fight. GW's last term along with Hastert, Boehner and McConnell have cured me of being a Republican.
Old habits die hard and the pull to support Cruz was strong. I never really warmed up to him much and only could observe that on paper (policy wise) he seemed to be the best choice. Having him as president would have probably slowed the decline a bit and he would have shored up the Supreme Court with, if not conservatives, at least moderates who are still connected to some shards of reality.
I'm still expecting Trump to be destroyed by the media at some point. The guy just has to have some skeletons in his closet that haven't been used against him yet. Actually the media can just change the tone and type of coverage of him and destroy him with stuff that's already happened during the campaign. They will milk his celebrity for every dime they can before going into full "You Go Girl" mode.
It's a bit liberating viewing the process from the "outside" and yes, depressing.
-
I fully expect the media turn also.
Trumps favor is he has become a master of sound bites and spinning conflict to his favor.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
This just popped up on my various internet feeds as an "Official Policy Position" and new. I thought it might be relevant to us here.
While it has some things I'm not a fan of, it certainly provides a sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton's position.
Trump position on 2nd Ammendment (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights)
-
I refuse to vote for Trump. My principles will not be sold out for him.
What principles are those? I'd think that he was closer to your positions than any of the previous GOP nominees going back through GWB.
-
I refuse to vote for Trump. My principles will not be sold out for him.
I also predict many will line up to pull the (R) because they've been conditioned to do so, despite him not being a fundamentalist or establishment wonk or neocon hawk or whatever other box they're looking to have checked. I thought that he'd be the death of the Grand Old Party, but now I'm not sure.
And that's why the Democrats will win. Because they WILL hold their noses and vote D just because D is not R. As long as the Republicans are unwilling to just vote against the Democratic candidate, they'll never win another election for president.
I'm not even a Republican -- or a Democrat. I have been an unaffiliated voter ever since I first registered to vote, because even back then I could see that the entrenched, two-party system was rigged in favor of back room deals and party insiders. My principles are, in general, to vote for the candidate I think will do the better job. However, there are elections (with increasing frequency, sadly) in which I don't much care for either candidate. For a few election cycles I just sat out those elections, as a "protest."
And then I realized that my "protest" meant nothing, because the establishment didn't know that I stayed home because I didn't like either candidate. For all they knew I might as well have been on vacation or playing golf. Voting is a responsibility and a civic duty. As much as I don't like being forced to vote against someone I don't like rather than for someone I do like, sometimes the principle boils down to "I have to vote against [___] because to not do so is to vote for him/her."
This year is such a case. Whoever becomes the Republican nominee, he won't be Hillary -- and that's the best reason I can think of to vote R.
-
I refuse to vote for Trump. My principles will not be sold out for him.
I don't like trump.
It would go against my principles to vote for him too- at least that's what the angel on my right is whispering in my ear.
However, the devil in my left ear is screaming "vote for him! Put up big yard signs for Trump and bumperstickers on your car! Trump makes peoples in LaRaza, ACLU, moveon.org, 99ers/occupy, feminists, and gun banners heads go asplody!!!!"
I don't see a vote for trump anymore as a vote against hillary, I see it as giving the finger to all of the useful idiots in the country. As poor of a choice that he is, I want political payback to all of the clowns who put obama in office.
-
^these two.
I may not favor Trump. Hell even Cruz has rubbed me a little strange. But short of coming out and saying "haha idiots I got you" I'll vote for him.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
If HRC and trump are the nominees, and #nevertrump makes as much of a difference as people think, HRC will win.
Given what we absolutely DO know about HRC, AND the fact she is no where near as back and forth as trump, HRC being elected is a KNOWN "absolutely worse", while trump is a "might be bad"
In the above HRC vs trump general assumption is true, the only logical reason for a "Hillary is bad" voter not voting for trump is simple:
You feel that the faster we go off the cliff, the better, and whatever damage done is recoverable in a timeframe that matters to you.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe the damage done by an HRC presidency (AND the commensurate D win in congress, since all those R voters that say #nevertrump stay home) would not be recoverable in a timeframe that matters to me.
So please, I implore you, if it's HRC vs T, don't stay home...at least vote in the congressional elections so there is some bulwark against HRC.
-
What principles are those? I'd think that he was closer to your positions than any of the previous GOP nominees going back through GWB.
Trump then or reformed trump? The trump who has supported gun control, the AWB, obamacare, using eminent domain to take a widow's home for a limo parking lot, poured money into the campaign coffers of the very people he now seeks to defeat, and using bankruptcy protections to keep himself rich while his businesses fail....or the trump now that tries to line himself up as the supporter of the little man, 2nd amendment, and constitution?
I don't trust him. Period. I don't believe him. Period. The man suddenly has shifted positions in the last 4-5 years, and he did so because it is expedient to his end goal. More power and a legacy, a bust and a portrait in the white house.
He is not anti-establishment. He has supported and held up the very system he rails against today.
-
Is Trump is less worthy of a vote than Dole or McCain were?
How many of us held our noses and voted for turds like them and Romney?
How many of us deceived ourselves into thinking GW was actually a small G non-interventionist conservative and voted for him? Not just once but twice. He is a freaking Bush for goodness sakes, what were we thinking? At least the country finally woke up and rejected Jeb!
I've been voting lesser of two evils for so long now I don't even know what it is to vote FOR someone.
None of them were ever socons, constitutionalists or small government, small "L" guys yet many of us lined up and voted for them. They were the establishment picks and we supported them.
My temptation is to sit this one out also but if Trump looks like he really is going to shake things up I may vote for him. As he rolls out more policy papers and we observe who he is surrounding himself with as his experts we will get a good idea of the reality of his stances. Or maybe not, he is a wild card for sure. He won't be "my guy" but he might get my lesser evil vote (once again). But only if he is truly damaging the establishment.
We know what Hillary will do, she's a neocon war monger bought and paid for by the money guys. She will continue the destruction (deconstruction if you will) of what is left of the republic.
-
Is Trump is less worthy of a vote than Dole or McCain were?
How many of us held our noses and voted for turds like them and Romney?
How many of us deceived ourselves into thinking GW was actually a small G non-interventionist conservative and voted for him? Not just once but twice. He is a freaking Bush for goodness sakes, what were we thinking? At least the country finally woke up and rejected Jeb!
I've been voting lesser of two evils for so long now I don't even know what it is to vote FOR someone.
None of them were ever socons, constitutionalists or small government, small "L" guys yet many of us lined up and voted for them. They were the establishment picks and we supported them.
My temptation is to sit this one out also but if Trump looks like he really is going to shake things up I may vote for him. As he rolls out more policy papers and we observe who he is surrounding himself with as his experts we will get a good idea of the reality of his stances. Or maybe not, he is a wild card for sure. He won't be "my guy" but he might get my lesser evil vote (once again). But only if he is truly damaging the establishment.
We know what Hillary will do, she's a neocon war monger bought and paid for by the money guys. She will continue the destruction (deconstruction if you will) of what is left of the republic.
I didn't vote for McCain or Romney. I only voted for GW once, and voted L in 2004.
-
I'm more interested in seeing Tump post convention if he gets the nomination. What will he have to say and how will he say it? Everything that has been going on up to the convention is meaningless blather at this point, with a view of gaining the nomination. The conventional wisdom for decades now is that those inside the Beltway were totally out of touch with the real America. Confirmation of that is on full display right now. :facepalm:
Right now I'm walking around in my Pearls before Swine T-shirt that has a pic of rat holding up a poster of rat titled Despair. Beneath are the words Election 2016.
-
My temptation is to sit this one out also but if Trump looks like he really is going to shake things up I may vote for him.
Hasn't he already shaken things?
We know what Hillary will do, she's a neocon war monger bought and paid for by the money guys.
:facepalm: Can we please stop using that word? It was bad enough when it meant "Republican I disagree with." Now it means - what? :facepalm:
-
Trump then or reformed trump? The trump who has supported gun control, the AWB, obamacare, using eminent domain to take a widow's home for a limo parking lot, poured money into the campaign coffers of the very people he now seeks to defeat, and using bankruptcy protections to keep himself rich while his businesses fail....or the trump now that tries to line himself up as the supporter of the little man, 2nd amendment, and constitution?
I don't trust him. Period. I don't believe him. Period. The man suddenly has shifted positions in the last 4-5 years, and he did so because it is expedient to his end goal. More power and a legacy, a bust and a portrait in the white house.
He is not anti-establishment. He has supported and held up the very system he rails against today.
Stipulating every last word you write is true (and I am sure of 50%+ of what you write is correct, no dithering), how does that make him any less trustworthy than any other candidate for POTUS from either major party? To include "I support increasing H1B visas 500%--er--I mean I mean we need to ELIMINATE H1B visas!" Ted Cruz.
Heck, I only think there is a 10% chance Trump will do anything useful(1) or in accordance with his policies. That is enough to get me up off the couch and vote. I won't make the argument that is enough for all folk, but it is the best odds we've got, considering the alternatives. Welcome to The Decline of Western Civilization: Dark Age Dawning.
Red: the blood of angry men!
Black: the dark of ages past!
Red: a world about to dawn!
Black: the night that ends at last!
Red: the blood of angry men!
Black: the dark ages at last!
Red: a world about to drown!
Black: the night that comes at last!
(1) Damage to GOP and Democrat parties, their donors, and all in the ruling class qualifies in my book.
I didn't vote for McCain or Romney. I only voted for GW once, and voted L in 2004.
Piker. I coyote voted in 2004 and 2008. In 2012 I had no more coyote votes to give. You got one more arm to chew off for your country. Because if you don't vote for someone you despise a little less than the others on the ballot the terrorists have already won.
:facepalm: Can we please stop using that word? It was bad enough when it meant "Republican I disagree with." Now it means - what? :facepalm:
I feel your pain.
I originally used it only for the trotskyite Jews who got mugged by history and began to oppose communism in the late 20th century and then infiltrated both conservatism and the GOP. I'd get cranky when someone would call a gentile a neo-con.
Thing is, they infiltrated conservatism as entryists and then managed to stomp out almost all of old-school American-focused conservatism. So sometime after Reagan's election, conservative ~ neoconservative. Jeane Kirkpatrick is an early example, but you can see the strain run brightly through GWB and the current neo-con sort, no matter if jew or gentile. I guess you could call them, "rootless self-serving globalist corporatists" but that is not as pithy as neo-con.
I am not yet ready to spread the term even farther to include folk who never claimed to be conservative.
-
This just popped up on my various internet feeds as an "Official Policy Position" and new. I thought it might be relevant to us here.
While it has some things I'm not a fan of, it certainly provides a sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton's position.
Trump position on 2nd Ammendment (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights)
That's not "new." I checked that out a couple of months ago. While it seems to be a change in his position from long ago, when he was still New York City-bound in his firearms attitudes, I believe it is the same kind of opinion-shift that I had from my own New York City upbringing.
It can happen; it happened to me when I moved out here in the early sixties of the last century.
I was shocked that the whole world was not like Brooklyn/Queens, NY. Kind of like a reverse provincialism, as when a rube from flyover country can't believe how tall NY buildings are and stares up at them in wonderment.
Except the other way around. I stared upward at the Second Amendment in wonderment.
Terry
-
That's not "new." I checked that out a couple of months ago. While it seems to be a change in his position from long ago, when he was still New York City-bound in his firearms attitudes, I believe it is the same kind of opinion-shift that I had from my own New York City upbringing.
It can happen; it happened to me when I moved out here in the early sixties of the last century.
Flip-flopper! How can you now be trusted?
Interesting poll data:
http://www.vdare.com/posts/why-no-msm-mention-of-poll-showing-trump-tying-clinton-with-aid-of-black-voters
Trump gets 43% of the white Likely Voters vs. 34% for Clinton...Trump gets 15% of blacks (vs. 6% for Romney in 2012).
I'll make a quickie prediction:
Trump will beat Romney, McCain, and GWB' performance in both absolute number and percentage of black and hispanic voter blocks.
-
A LOT of what Trump is saying today sounds good: border fence, repealing Obamacare, "America First" trade deals, support for the 2nd Amendment, etc. Of course, how much he really means to follow through on remains to be seen, given his past history. Has he genuinely changed? Maybe . . . maybe not. But even Reagan got his start as a Democrat.
And the sheer, unadulterated TERROR he instills in the RINOs who've been pre-emptively surrendering for years to the democrats is a point in his favor.
On the other hand, a LOT - in fact, virtually EVERYTHING - Hillary promises is poor policy, if not downright anti-American. And despite being a pathological liar - she actually means to do a lot of it to us.
-
A LOT of what Trump is saying today sounds good: border fence, repealing Obamacare, "America First" trade deals, support for the 2nd Amendment, etc. Of course, how much he really means to follow through on remains to be seen, given his past history. Has he genuinely changed? Maybe . . . maybe not. But even Reagan got his start as a Democrat.
And the sheer, unadulterated TERROR he instills in the RINOs who've been pre-emptively surrendering for years to the democrats is a point in his favor.
On the other hand, a LOT - in fact, virtually EVERYTHING - Hillary promises is poor policy, if not downright anti-American. And despite being a pathological liar - she actually means to do a lot of it to us.
Yeah, see, I just don't trust Trump not to completely 180 on everything, while laughing and publicly bragging that he tricked everyone to get into office so he could just do whatever the hell he wants.
-
I'm more interested in seeing Tump post convention if he gets the nomination. What will he have to say and how will he say it? Everything that has been going on up to the convention is meaningless blather at this point, with a view of gaining the nomination. The conventional wisdom for decades now is that those inside the Beltway were totally out of touch with the real America. Confirmation of that is on full display right now. :facepalm:
Right now I'm walking around in my Pearls before Swine T-shirt that has a pic of rat holding up a poster of rat titled Despair. Beneath are the words Election 2016.
If he gets the nomination, seeing how Trump changes his message post convention would be a good thing to look for.
If I can't decide any other way, I will fall back on gun rights. I KNOW Clinton is a gun banner. At this point, Trump is a question mark who I hear has some people close to him that are pro-gun. We'll see.
-
Trump has been more of a Democrat most of his life than he's ever been a Republican and I think Virginia kind of sent a message yesterday when 10 out of 13 delegates selected were Cruz delegates not Trump's delegates if trump doesn't get it on the first ballot just go away
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
So is anyone else thinking October Surprise? I alluded to it in my first post.
Hillary may end up bowing out of the race to be replaced by someone else. She will have to in order to get her presidential pardon.
I just read an article where they posited a Biden/Warren ticket.
Myself I don't think they will run uncle Joe but I think Warren will be the top of the ticket.
Trump vs Warren
-
So is anyone else thinking October Surprise? I alluded to it in my first post.
Hillary may end up bowing out of the race to be replaced by someone else. She will have to in order to get her presidential pardon.
I just read an article where they posited a Biden/Warren ticket.
Myself I don't think they will run uncle Joe but I think Warren will be the top of the ticket.
Trump vs Warren
I'm not sure Warren has the same teeth that either Bernie or Hillary have. Bernie has the youth college idiot vote locked up, and will still get plenty of (D) locksteppers. Hillary has the (D) establishment vote locked up.
-
Between Trump and Hillary, it's not an easy decision. They're both terrible in many ways.
Trump
- Incompetent generally speaking
- NYC liberal who's playing to a crowd
- Terrible person, hostile to individual rights that aren't his.
+ Allegedly pro borders and business. No track record, so might be flat out lies. Or might not be.
HRC
- She's more criminal
- Owned by NYC banks
- Very very very Establishment
- Has no issues letting Americans die in third world countries, then throwing their corpses under the bus
+ I wouldn't say is competent, but she's been a cog in the system for a long time.
+ HRC is probably more sane (at least her public persona is) and generally status quo
Honestly, HRC is sounding slightly more appealing even if I strongly believe she should be in prison.
-
- see below -
-
Between Trump and Hillary, it's not an easy decision. They're both terrible in many ways.
Trump
- Incompetent generally speaking
- NYC liberal who's playing to a crowd
- Terrible person, hostile to individual rights that aren't his.
+ Allegedly pro borders and business. No track record, so might be flat out lies. Or might not be.
HRC
- She's more criminal
- Owned by NYC banks
- Very very very Establishment
- Has no issues letting Americans die in third world countries, then throwing their corpses under the bus
+ I wouldn't say is competent, but she's been a cog in the system for a long time.
+ HRC is probably more sane (at least her public persona is) and generally status quo
Honestly, HRC is sounding slightly more appealing even if I strongly believe she should be in prison.
Gee, shocker, the self described Democrat prefers a Democrat, even if she is a criminal who deserves to be in jail.
-
Trump
*Snip*
+ Allegedly pro borders and business. No track record, so might be flat out lies. Or might not be.
I don't consider being pro business a plus. Pro free market would be good, but not so much pro business.
-
I don't consider being pro business a plus. Pro free market would be good, but not so much pro business.
The only possible upside to Trump is that HIS interests intersect with my (our) interests.
So the pertinent questions are does he really want to make "America Great Again" by making the best trade deals for us as a nation vs whats best for the multinationals as he says? And is he (as Rev legitimately asks) even competent to affect that kind of change?
-
How do you imagine trumps interests are yours?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
How do you imagine trumps interests are yours?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Like I said, possible upside, I'm not sold. Instead of The only possible upside to Trump is that HIS interests intersect with my (our) interests. I should have said The only possible upside to Trump is if HIS interests intersect with my (our) interests.
If his policy positions look good to me AND he surrounds himself with folks that bear out that he's actually going to pursue those policies if elected then I might believe we have intersecting interests.
The fact that he is even promoting a return to national self interest is a good start but that is all it is, a start.
-
Gee, shocker, the self described Democrat prefers a Democrat, even if she is a criminal who deserves to be in jail.
I don't understand. Your statement, minus the gender pronoun, is applicable to either candidate. Both have been Democrats for the majority of their lives. Neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton have been convicted of crimes, but have both been accused more than once of being criminals.
Democrat - 1964? to 1987
Republican - 1987 to 1999
Reform Party - 1999 to 2001
Democrat - 2001 to 2009
Republican Party - 2009 to 2011
Independent - 2011 to 2012
Republican Party - 2012 to ?
Dem - 31 years (estimated)
Repub - 18 years
Other - 3 years
HRC should be given a fair hearing, but from what I understand, she probably violated law regarding the handling of classified material. Looking over Mr Trump's list of legal activity, I do not see him being morally or ethically superior to Mrs Clinton. In no way am I saying he has committed felonies, but the length and type of legal actions involved say much about the man's character. Whether he broke the law or not as alleged, I can't say but it does not give a good impression. Same with Mrs. Clinton.
-
I don't understand. Your statement, minus the gender pronoun, is applicable to either candidate. ....
My point was that the Democrat chose the Democrat, really nothing more.
The history of the Clinton machine has the appearance of being much more seedy and nefarious than the Trump Empire. But I suspect all the dirt on Trump hasn't been exposed yet. Still I don't quite hold them equivalent, Trump is the less unsavory character in my eyes, so far.
-
Between Trump and Hillary, it's not an easy decision. They're both terrible in many ways.
Trump
- Incompetent generally speaking¹
- NYC liberal who's playing to a crowd²
- Terrible person, hostile to individual rights that aren't his.³
+ Allegedly pro borders and business. No track record, so might be flat out lies. Or might not be.
¹ Oh, really? The guy has built a mega-empire of businesses.....and he's "incompetent."
Not sure how you you got where you are from reality.
² Trump is not an ideological cxreature. Now, Rush Limbaugh IS that, so is Michael Savage, so is Bernie Sanders, et al. What is is someone who knows how to put things together & make them run. I will note that on gun control he was more liberal but he has "come to God," thanks to his sons who are gun owners and hunters.
³ :facepalm: "Terrible person," huh. Well, certain aspects of his personality are grating, I will give you that, but I hold the line there and dispute the conclusion you have arrived at. I tend to withh hold "terrible" for leaders like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Putin, and that ilk. I doubt that Trump will qualify for the Einsatzgruppen Brigade at the end of his term(s).
HRC
- She's more criminal
- Owned by NYC banks
- Very very very Establishment
- Has no issues letting Americans die in third world countries, then throwing their corpses under the bus
+ I wouldn't say is competent, but she's been a cog in the system for a long time.
+ HRC is probably more sane (at least her public persona is) and generally status quo
Honestly, HRC is sounding slightly more appealing even if I strongly believe she should be in prison.
What to say here? She IS more criminal....for sure. "Owned by banks??" I don't really care ..... I mean given her history.... cattle futures, land deals, Rose Law Firm records, Ben Ghazi blow-up & cover-up, e-mail server scandal.....I don't know why the democrat party chose her save for the fact she is "one of their own." Not that Trump is a prize catch but, really, they WANT that HARPIE as the head of the party?
"More sane?" Really? She insists she WILL NOT BE INDICTED over the e-mail business and here, she is either living in insaneville, or, she knows "the fix is in," and I cannot eliminate that being the case, given she hasn't been caught or punished for any of her prior machinations.
Perhaps more telling is her making gun control and gun bans apparently a centerpoint of her campaign. We know how well THAT worked for her husband twenty years ago with the AWB and -*SNAP*- there went kongress over to Gingrich. She can't have forgotten that....and given more recent events many people are now evenb more attuned to 2A issues.
Gotta love politics. So we have something worse than a Hobsons choice.... just remember we get the government we so richly deserve..... >:D
:facepalm:
-
My point was that the Democrat chose the Democrat, really nothing more.
Although the history of the Clinton machine has the appearance of being much more seedy and nefarious than the Trump Empire. But I suspect all the dirt on Trump hasn't been exposed yet. Still I don't quite hold them equivalent, Trump is the less unsavory character in my eyes, so far.
They're both Democrats. One is just registered a Republican temporarily. ;)
So 'the Democrat' didn't exactly have an alternative choice, but likely will toss away his vote at the Libertarian Party. I respect your opinion. I honestly just haven't made up my mind which of the two is more seedy and nefarious. They're both terrible persons, as well as seedy/nefarious. The question is which Democrat is MORE terrible, seedy and nefarious. That's a question I'm still pondering.
Further compounding the issue is that Trump and the Clintons have been very good and long term friends, add in strong financial ties as well. Until quite recently, of course. They both appear quite willing to throw each other under the bus for political expediency.
-
¹ Oh, really? The guy has built a mega-empire of businesses.....and he's "incompetent."
Not sure how you you got where you are from reality.
² Trump is not an ideological cxreature. Now, Rush Limbaugh IS that, so is Michael Savage, so is Bernie Sanders, et al. What is is someone who knows how to put things together & make them run. I will note that on gun control he was more liberal but he has "come to God," thanks to his sons who are gun owners and hunters.
³ :facepalm: "Terrible person," huh. Well, certain aspects of his personality are grating, I will give you that, but I hold the line there and dispute the conclusion you have arrived at. I tend to withh hold "terrible" for leaders like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Putin, and that ilk. I doubt that Trump will qualify for the Einsatzgruppen Brigade at the end of his term(s).
What to say here? She IS more criminal....for sure. "Owned by banks??" I don't really care ..... I mean given her history.... cattle futures, land deals, Rose Law Firm records, Ben Ghazi blow-up & cover-up, e-mail server scandal.....I don't know why the democrat party chose her save for the fact she is "one of their own." Not that Trump is a prize catch but, really, they WANT that HARPIE as the head of the party?
"More sane?" Really? She insists she WILL NOT BE INDICTED over the e-mail business and here, she is either living in insaneville, or, she knows "the fix is in," and I cannot eliminate that being the case, given she hasn't been caught or punished for any of her prior machinations.
Perhaps more telling is her making gun control and gun bans apparently a centerpoint of her campaign. We know how well THAT worked for her husband twenty years ago with the AWB and -*SNAP*- there went kongress over to Gingrich. She can't have forgotten that....and given more recent events many people are now evenb more attuned to 2A issues.
Gotta love politics. So we have something worse than a Hobsons choice.... just remember we get the government we so richly deserve..... >:D
:facepalm:
You ever read his book?
-
You ever read his book?
Which book? And do you really believe HE wrote it?
-
Which book? And do you really believe HE wrote it?
You think his positions outlined in it are real? Or will you when you read it?.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE
-
Trump make up his mind on healthcare? Or find that missing 5 mill he supposedly raised for vets?
http://youtu.be/b3-nohiCetM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I don't understand. Your statement, minus the gender pronoun, is applicable to either candidate. Both have been Democrats for the majority of their lives. Neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton have been convicted of crimes, but have both been accused more than once of being criminals.
Democrat - 1964? to 1987
Republican - 1987 to 1999
Reform Party - 1999 to 2001
Democrat - 2001 to 2009
Republican Party - 2009 to 2011
Independent - 2011 to 2012
Republican Party - 2012 to ?
Dem - 31 years (estimated)
Repub - 18 years
Other - 3 years
HRC should be given a fair hearing, but from what I understand, she probably violated law regarding the handling of classified material. Looking over Mr Trump's list of legal activity, I do not see him being morally or ethically superior to Mrs Clinton. In no way am I saying he has committed felonies, but the length and type of legal actions involved say much about the man's character. Whether he broke the law or not as alleged, I can't say but it does not give a good impression. Same with Mrs. Clinton.
So how many dead can you lay at Trump's feet? I can list four that I directly tie to her for you on Hillary's side starting with Chris Stevens. Benghazi alone should be enough to keep that "woman" out of the White House.
-
. . . If I can't decide any other way, I will fall back on gun rights. I KNOW Clinton is a gun banner. At this point, Trump is a question mark who I hear has some people close to him that are pro-gun. We'll see.
FWIW, a couple of years ago, some lefties attacked Trump because both of his sons went on safari - a HUNTING safari - to Africa.
This was not a staged photo-op like when Kerry, Clinton, etc., allegedly go duck hunting, but an actual hunting trip.
Trump defended his sons, though he said he personally wasn't a hunter.
Here's what the hysterical lefties made of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tod7vW64jcY
So even though this is indirect evidence of being "pro Second Amendment" and is far from conclusive . . . it still puts Trump miles ahead of HRC on this issue. (Ya think Chelsea would do this? :rofl: )
-
If Trump pulls out the nomination, and HRC doesn't get indicted, I'm writing in SMOD for the election.
One small benefit of this election cycle is that my wife is now %100 on board with emigrating. Depending on how the visa/job search goes we should be leaving the country at <1 year of the term of whoever wins next.
I do wonder who would directly order the murder of more of their rivals. The Clintons have an indirect body count in the hundreds counting things like Waco, and maybe what two dozen or so witnesses who got Vince Fostered on their surreptitious orders? Trump will have to work hard to catch up, but I have a feeling he'll manage.
-
Which book? And do you really believe HE wrote it?
Do you think Hillary wrote hers?
Do you believe ANY politician actually wrote any book with his/her name on it?
-
Trump defended his sons, though he said he personally wasn't a hunter.
Pfft. I'm not a hunter. But I am an NRA life member, certified instructor, and I have carry permits from multiple states.
-
Trump defended his sons, though he said he personally wasn't a hunter.
Trump actually defended his own family?!? How amazing that someone would defend their own spawn against outsider criticism! Why, we never see that kind of behavior!
-
Do you think Hillary wrote hers?
Do you believe ANY politician actually wrote any book with his/her name on it?
They still have to live with it.
Obama's book pretty much said he was a lefty communist. It was right.
-
FWIW, a couple of years ago, some lefties attacked Trump because both of his sons went on safari - a HUNTING safari - to Africa.
This was not a staged photo-op like when Kerry, Clinton, etc., allegedly go duck hunting, but an actual hunting trip.
Trump defended his sons, though he said he personally wasn't a hunter.
Here's what the hysterical lefties made of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tod7vW64jcY
So even though this is indirect evidence of being "pro Second Amendment" and is far from conclusive . . . it still puts Trump miles ahead of HRC on this issue. (Ya think Chelsea would do this? :rofl: )
That is what I was referring to. I heard 3rd hand on the radio that someone talked to his son at Shot Show who says we have nothing to worry about as far as gun rights. It doesn't make him pro-gun, it just means he is not an enemy of gun rights. Would he still sign some foolish legislation after an incident like Sandy Hook? Maybe. It still puts him solidly ahead of Clinton on that issue.
It also means I might still be able to sell my surplus AR15 rifles before the election this fall.
-
They still have to live with it.
Obama's book pretty much said he was a lefty communist. It was right.
I'm pretty sure calling Obama a communist is racist. I'm pretty sure.
-
It is quite possible that if Trump is elected he will ignore most all of the social issues. My suspicion is he will leave the so-con issues as they currently stand, no change to the status quo.
It seems to me that what motivates him is status, power and money. His campaign is basically "lets restore the status of the USA and lets get everyone back to work so they can make money".
I doubt he will go after any of the left or right hot button issues like guns, abortion etc.
You can't make yourself look great by alienating half the people. But if you usher in a raging growing economy where everybody wins you are the hero.
Same thing with foreign policy. It's hard to be a winner sending your countries sons and daughters off to foreign lands to fight wars of aggression that aren't easy to justify. Somebody will always hate you for it. But if you build up a kick ass military and vow only to use it except in obvious defense of the country you can have your cake and eat it too.
Immigration is another one where he will try and have it both ways. I suspect if he becomes president and actually follows through on his rhetoric the overall quality of immigrants will go up due to increased scrutiny. There will still be a lot of them though.
Or he may run our country into the ground further like he has with some of his other projects. Just because he is going to focus on economic issues that doesn't mean he will be successful. He could get elected and the world oligarchs might punish him for trying to disrupt the nice planet size plantation they're building. It could be a national disaster. Although at this point I fail to see how he could be worse than another Democrat administration (or typical Republican for that matter).
It's bad enough the Democrats are wrong on the economics but they have become unhinged from reality and want to make men more feminine and woman more masculine. They seem to hate traditional masculinity and despise traditional femininity. Every social issue they pursue chips away at masculinity, femininity, family and the cultural institutions developed to support them. The Democrats are hell bent on repressing and outlawing traditional morality; replacing it with government approved nihilistic amorality, by law or force if necessary.
Government neglect of the social issues would be a win for the country.
-
I found this while time-travelling. (It's from February). Funny stuff, in hindsight.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/01/donald-trump-the-hater-is-now-a-loser.html
It is quite possible that if Trump is elected he will ignore most all of the social issues. My suspicion is he will leave the so-con issues as they currently stand, no change to the status quo.
It seems to me that what motivates him is status, power and money. His campaign is basically "lets restore the status of the USA and lets get everyone back to work so they can make money".
I doubt he will go after any of the left or right hot button issues like guns, abortion etc.
On social issues, the status quo is creeping galloping madness, and disenfranchisement of anyone that doesn't want to actively participate in gender-bending. Trump is, apparently, not interested in arresting that. Though I guess he might pitch in to shield business owners from the anti-gender-warriors.
The gun issue is similar, in that he won't necessarily do anything, but how open will he be to pressure from either side?
-
I have an idea that Trump doesn't like being told what to do. Since Democrats main occupation is telling people what to do, perhaps Trump might be a roadblock to some of the SJW crap.
Trump to me is like concealed carry. You know America is Shall Issue, but you don't know if he's carrying or not. I don't think he'd be as dangerous to liberty and the economy and immigration as Hillary would be.
-
Do you think Hillary wrote hers?
Do you believe ANY politician actually wrote any book with his/her name on it?
First, I was not aware Hillary had written a book, and wouldn't buy it, nor read it if it were given to me free.
Second, I would think very few policritters write their own book. So what?
-
Trump actually defended his own family?!? How amazing that someone would defend their own spawn against outsider criticism! Why, we never see that kind of behavior!
It's a nice change of pace from him fantasizing about banging his daughter.
-
First, I was not aware Hillary had written a book, and wouldn't buy it, nor read it if it were given to me free.
Second, I would think very few policritters write their own book. So what?
So do you believe the statements he made in his book?
-
It's a nice change of pace from him fantasizing about banging his daughter.
Hey but he explains it! She's got a great rack
-
innernets is talking about Cruz dropping out.
About to get interesting.
-
First, I was not aware Hillary had written a book, and wouldn't buy it, nor read it if it were given to me free.
Second, I would think very few policritters write their own book. So what?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51uKsnoIbbL._SX341_BO1%2C204%2C203%2C200_.jpg&hash=bc7042c57a8524148604bf010c22b7561e2f3576)
http://www.amazon.com/It-Takes-Village-Lessons-Children/dp/0684825457?tag=duckduckgo-d-20
-
innernets is talking about Cruz dropping out.
About to get interesting.
Confirmed.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/ted-cruz-drops-out-of-presidential-race-222763
-
Yup
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Not to worry, since we'll get the leadership we deserve.
I think cruz could have won it if he had gone into the military, even as a reservist or national guard and had no choice but to learn to deal with regular folk. As it was his personality is straight out of uncanny valley and the billionaire had a better rapor with regular folk.
-
Not to worry, since we'll get the leadership we deserve.
Reality TV Star or Criminal.
Why is it that whenever I agree with you, it's always on the most depressing of topics?
-
So do you believe the statements he made in his book?
No more, nor less, than I believe anything else he, or any other policritters says.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51uKsnoIbbL._SX341_BO1%2C204%2C203%2C200_.jpg&hash=bc7042c57a8524148604bf010c22b7561e2f3576)
http://www.amazon.com/It-Takes-Village-Lessons-Children/dp/0684825457?tag=duckduckgo-d-20
That was---what, 20 years ago?
I seem to recall Bill wrote a book explaining his tax policies called, "It Takes a Pillage." [tinfoil]
-
Well if I bother this year, it will be to vote third party. (L) most likely.
-
The (Republican) people have spoken.
-
First, I was not aware Hillary had written a book, and wouldn't buy it, nor read it if it were given to me free.
Second, I would think very few policritters write their own book. So what?
Most presidential candidates write a book get some propaganda ghost-written for them, prior to running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Writings_and_recordings
-
Most presidential candidates write a book get some propaganda ghost-written for them, prior to running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Writings_and_recordings
Yea.... by the time I'm through watching the B*S* they spew on TV news shows and other media I don't think I could stomach reading a whole book by most of these tinplated twerps.
-
I feel your pain.
I originally used it only for the trotskyite Jews who got mugged by history and began to oppose communism in the late 20th century and then infiltrated both conservatism and the GOP. I'd get cranky when someone would call a gentile a neo-con.
Thing is, they infiltrated conservatism as entryists and then managed to stomp out almost all of old-school American-focused conservatism. So sometime after Reagan's election, conservative ~ neoconservative. Jeane Kirkpatrick is an early example, but you can see the strain run brightly through GWB and the current neo-con sort, no matter if jew or gentile. I guess you could call them, "rootless self-serving globalist corporatists" but that is not as pithy as neo-con.
I am not yet ready to spread the term even farther to include folk who never claimed to be conservative.
Conspiracy Co-worker has now informed me that I am the world's only hipster neo-con. While I find this hilarious, I am dismayed to find that @hipsterneocon is already taken. Makes sense, I guess. The two labels no one claims for themselves, and that have become catch-all insults for anyone we don't like.
-
No more, nor less, than I believe anything else he, or any other policritters says.
So what do you believe here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xq5XPM-9KRU&ab_channel=TheElect
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Conspiracy Co-worker has now informed me that I am the world's only hipster neo-con. While I find this hilarious, I am dismayed to find that @hipsterneocon is already taken. Makes sense, I guess. The two labels no one claims for themselves, and that have become catch-all insults for anyone we don't like.
So, have you read Rod Dreher's "Crunchy Con?"
http://www.amazon.com/Crunchy-Cons-Birkenstocked-evangelical-homeschooling/dp/1400050642?ie=UTF8&keywords=crunchy%20con&qid=1462383056&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Crunchy-Cons-Conservative-Counterculture-Return-ebook/dp/B003DYGO7S?ie=UTF8&keywords=crunchy%20con&qid=1462383056&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2
Sub-titled variously, "How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers and their diverse crowd of countercultural conservatives plan to save America (or at least the Republican Party)." Or, less volubly, "The New Conservative Counterculture and Its Return to Roots."
-
So what do you believe here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xq5XPM-9KRU&ab_channel=TheElect
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
You're joking, right? Do you know how many times Trump has flip-flopped, and "walked back a story?"
If I had a penny for them all, I'D by myself a castle on an enchanted island [tinfoil].
-
And now Kasich is out. Suspended his campaign late this afternoon. That locks it for Trump, minus any shenanigans at the convention.
-
So, have you read Rod Dreher's "Crunchy Con?"
Dreher is an interesting dude. Makes me want to attend an Orthodox church with a priest who does the Mass in Latin facing away from the congregation.
-
Dreher is an interesting dude. Makes me want to attend an Orthodox church with a priest who does the Mass in Latin facing away from the congregation.
Interesting yes. But the man is the consummate navel gazer who will never accomplish anything of use. He introspects himself into paralysis in the face of any positive action. Any action is always quibbled to the point he can not support the action because the man acting in the face of evil or cultural rot somehow did not take rods belly button lint seriously enough for the tragically introspective author to support him in good conscience.
He makes a career of making the perfect the enemy of the good. And of elevating consumer choices to the level of biblical doctrine.
-
Were I Trump, I'd do Obama one better, by rolling out my Office of the President-Elect podium right now. :lol:
-
Were I Trump, I'd do Obama one better, by rolling out my Office of the President-Elect podium right now. :lol:
Geez, I'd forgotten all about that.
-
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/imageedit_1415_9728116437.jpg
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk