NOTE: Previously I suggested Dennis Prager as part of this group. I actually meant Mike Gallagher. From what I have heard, Prager is decidedly anti-Clinton and not a Trump apologist. My apologies…
Carl von Clausewitz famously said “War is the continuation of politics by other means”. He is of course right. But it’s also true that politics is war by other means.
Frankly, I’m tired of listening to guys like Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Herman Cain and others suggest that I’m not a real conservative or that I must be a closet Hillary supporter or something of that ilk because I do not support Donald Trump for president. (Which probably explains why I listen to a LOT more sports talk radio these days…) These paragons of conservatism gripe “Why aren’t they focusing their attention on Hillary?” or “Why haven’t you been focusing this much energy on President Obama?” Well, the fact is, since my first blogposts seven years ago: Racism: America’s Original Sin and The Gift of Freedom, I have done little else than write about the perils of the cancer of liberalism, tried to highlight the irrefutable fact that free markets, individual freedom and limited government are the keys to prosperity, and argue that our Constitution is the greatest document in human history.
Now I don’t harbor the conceit that Hannity, Cain or any of the others are actually talking about me specifically. They don’t know me and I’ve no idea if they’ve ever even read my blog. But there are no doubt more than a few conservatives who have spent years listening to the talking heads on “conservative radio” opining that if we only had a real conservative carrying the banner for the GOP then we’d have a chance to save the nation, who are now stunned to watch as those same talking heads have swooned like teenage girls as they fawn over Donald Trump. And now they lecture us that we’re somehow traitors to the conservative cause because we don’t become sycophants too?
The reality is, standing for conservative principals applies whether a candidate is in the Democrat or the Republican Party. Principals don’t bend just because the liberal candidate is on your side of the isle. That’s why I supported Christine O’Donnell over RINO Mike Castle. Sure, she may have been a flawed candidate, but she was an actual conservative rather than being part of the squish GOP establishment that has proven itself to be all about power and privilege – its own – as opposed to standing for limited government and actually trying to stop Barack Obama.
So today we find ourselves subjected to tirades that the #nevertrump movement – of which I’m not a member – and conservatives who are trying to figure out how to push an illiberal liberal from the perch the media anointed him with – via $2 billion in fawning coverage – atop the GOP are somehow not true conservatives at all but are really Hillary supporters. Somehow if we still fight, even if it’s only for the flicker of hope that somehow Trump will implode or the convention will somehow figure out how to nominate someone else, we are somehow turncoats who were never believers in the first place.
That is, frankly, bullshit. It’s not that we don’t have disdain for fascist Barack Obama’s extra constitutional progressive policies. It’s not that we don’t despair at the thought of a vain liberal, crony capitalist opportunist sitting in the White House. We do. But the point is, we don’t want a vain liberal, crony capitalist opportunist running for president under the banner of the party that claims to represent conservatism and limited government. While I agree that a President Hillary Clinton – or Bernie Sanders or Pocahontas Warren – would be a disaster for freedom and prosperity that doesn’t mean that I have to support Donald Trump as the savior. The reality is, Donald Trump is every bit as much a big government crony capitalist as Clinton is. Well, maybe he’s a bit less of one, but at least Clinton only whined about the “vast right wing conspiracy” where as Trump has actually suggested that Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post as a tax dodge with the implicit threat that once in office he will use the mechanisms of government to punish Bezos and Amazon. Maybe he’s right about Bezos, but his threat, along with a similar approach to dealing with Ford and Carrier certainly suggests that a President Trump won’t be much of a free market and limited government guy.
Which brings us back to the point… conservatives are conservatives because they are (generally) conservative and believe in things like limited government, individual freedom and free markets. Conservative does not equal Republican, particularly when the Republican banner is being carried by a guy who is anathema to all of those things. That does not mean that I won’t vote for or even argue for Trump against Clinton in the general. I may do both, albeit reluctantly, but we’re not there yet. Strange things can happen… I remember shaking hands with Gary Hart in Florida a few months before he shot himself in the political head when he invited reporters to follow him, and they did.
Until Donald Trump is absolutely the only real option for keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House, he will not get my support and I will continue to do what I can to highlight the fact that he is no conservative savior, no conservative and no savior at all. He is a petty, spiteful, manipulative crony capitalist narcissist who would continue Barack Obama’s assault on the Constitution. Maybe it will be all for naught and maybe I’ll end up pulling the lever for him in the general as a nod to the reality that the other crony capitalist in the race would be even worse, but don’t accuse me of being a closet liberal because I don’t rejoice that bootlickers like Hannity et al have turned the party of Abraham Lincoln into the party of Bozo the Clown.
See author page
((Sorry about the odd linkage. It is this site, not me.))
As you look at the GOPe as represented in Congress, remind me when it stood its ground against Obama and even when Dems they were in the minority. Instead you’ll find GOPe’rs who gave Obama MORE than what he asked in terms of budget and spending.
(Oh, except for the Zika virus.)
It was Ted Cruz who set himself up as ”savior” for the nation. He was the one, not the voters, who had spokespersons claiming Cruz was the Mormon savior (even though he’s not Mormon) that this country needs.
Cruz was touted by some as the ”anointed one of God,” too.
Most voters rejected the entire concept of nominating a ''savior,'' or ''anointed one'' for the Republican party.<a
I really haven’t seen much of this false equivalency, vince.
I have heard, many times, that a sit at home instead of vote for the Republican nominee IS a tacit vote for Hillary.
I have also heard that Republicans voting for 3rd party helps Hillary, by default.
And who said that?
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus says a third-party presidential campaign against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would be a “suicide mission.”
But turn you into a closet liberal?
Never.
I’m glad you won’t let it come to that.
Search the term ”closet liberal” and you don’t find voters who sit home or vote 3rd party.
You find Trump accused of it, Charles Koch accused of it, Sarah Palin, Gov. Haley, John Roberts, Ben Carson, even one of the Bush presidents.
Trump cannot go over the 1237 until June 7th.
So, until then, you can continue to hold out hope of pulling the lever for a GOPer as a Republican instead of a 3rd party candidate.
Damn Vince tell us what you really think. Trump “petty,spiteful,manipulative,crony capitalist narcissist.” For starters.
Because you and others don’t want Trump to carry the mantel of the party of Lincoln you are called a lib? Hogwash.–you .unlike capitulating populist Trumpists, are holding to your beliefs about what Conservatism really is..
You can add Lou Dobbs, Eric Bolling and F.A. Trumpeteers to your “bootlickers like Hannity who have turned the Party of Lincoln into the Party of Bozo the Clown.”.
These people won’t even stand with Megyn Kelly or Bill O’Reilly who IMO actually are “fair and balanced,”
Straw man. They aren’t calling you a closet liberal. They are calling you a spoiled baby for not accepting that your candidate lost and now it’s time to move onto the general election and try to retain control of Congress. This is not a poop sandwich like Dole, McCain, or Romney. Mister Trump was chosen by the people, not the establishment.
If Trump enforces or nation’s borders and ends open immigration then he’ll have done enough for the country. Nobody voting for Mister Trump sees him as a savior, but an Abraham or Moses would be nice (and they were very flawed men).
A couple of months ago Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers had said that if a conservative won (understand: an anti-illegal immigration candidate), they would vote for Hillary. Now Adelson is supporting Trump and Christ Christie is in charge of picking Trump’s team; so much for the antiestablishment movement.
Doesn’t anyone feel the “burn” yet? Pun intended.
I have not watch Fox News for about three months now, the only show worth watching is LevinTV.
To what extent? To what extent would Hillary be worse than Trump or vise versa?
Like it or not, “limited government, individual freedom and free markets” equates to less regulations, less rules, or simply put, more lawlessness.
The problem with today’s corporately owned legislators is that they’ve snubbed the best interests of the electorate in order to appease their corporate owners. Yeah I know, I’m starting to sound like a liberal tree hugging hippy but to what extent such Ann Ryan or Darwin measures are applied has detrimental consequences. And there seems to be some black and white binary mindset that you have to pick one or the other. You either support the EPA or you eliminate it entirely, you don’t tweak union contracts or workers rights as you’re either a union boss thug or you support their demise. The list is many but there doesn’t seem to be a compromise or concern of the ramifications.
To be clear, Trump doesn’t give a flying rat’s ass about limited government, individual freedom and free markets. He doesn’t give a damn about protecting the Constitution. He’s a charlatan con artist who has scammed and conned deals throughout his life, often bailing himself out off of the backs of others.
Hillary comes closer to protecting limited government, individual freedom and free markets even if it means compromising. Trump on the other hand will exploit it and leave it in ashes.
I may not vote Hillary but I’ll never ever vote for the ;likes of Donald Trump.
@Nanny G:
well put Nanny G….
@Ajay42302: I feel your pain, but if you think that Hillary will protect limited government, I am afraid that you are letting your emotions get the better of you.
If you truly believe that “limited government, individual freedom and free markets” equates to less regulations, less rules, or simply put, more lawlessness. Then we disagree and I believe that you have been precondition to think more like the left than you yourself might even know. Government should serve as an arbitrator, not a co-conspirator.
But we agree that Trump would be a disaster, but so would be Hillary, with the added bonus of every left wing radical nut job group pushing their agenda behind her. As I said, it seems as though the only option that those of us who object to both of these candidates have, is to accept a Pyrrhic victory, or sit this one out.
@Ajay42302: Like it or not, “limited government, individual freedom and free markets” equates to less regulations, less rules, or simply put, more lawlessness.
thats not a valid argument at all…
its actually quite idiotic…
by your definition, cows are very lawless… lets make lots of laws so that they can benefit by being locked down…
why?
cause freedom is bad… freedom = lawlessness
Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, Allende, Mussolini, Napoleon, and more…
they must have had great states full of laws so that the people were not lawless.
The people also couldnt wipe their arses due to long lines for toilet paper, but at least the arse whiping was within the law.
the absense of MORALS means lawlessness whether laws exist or not!!!!!
@Ajay42302:
in singapore: It is illegal to come within 50 meters of a pedestrian crossing marker on any street. [thats half a football field]
In a small town in Switzerland it is illegal to ride down hills with a bike.
in iowa: The “Ice Cream Man” and his truck are banned.
New Jersey, Raritan: Profanity is prohibited.
[either everywhere else in the US is lawless for not having this, or they are lawless for not following it, yes?]
Florida, Hialeah: Ambling and strolling is a misdemeanor.
[so you better jog everywhere, or be a criminal]
California, Long Beach
It is illegal to curse on a mini-golf course.
Belgium
A driver who needs to turn through oncoming traffic has the right of way unless he slows down or stops.
[this one is a beaut if followed]
Iowa
One-armed piano players must perform for free
Champaign, Illinois
One may not pee in his neighbor’s mouth
[makes you wonder about illinois eh?]
Cleveland, Ohio
It’s illegal to catch mice without a hunting license!
In West Virginia It is legal for a male to have sex with an animal as long as it does not exceed 40 lbs
is this what you mean by laws making the world better?
then there are laws that make it ok to throw gay people off of roofs, cut off body parts, murder millions.
rememver this?
“Lebensunwertes Leben”??
a Nazi designation for the segments of the populace which, according to the Nazi regime of the time, had no right to live. Those individuals were targeted to be euthanized.
but it was all legal..
in fact, in germany loading people into ovens was legal
in russia working a person to death that was randomly picked up was legal
in UAE, and IRAN, cutting off body parts for minor offenses is legal
in Africa cutting the genitals off of a young girl without permission is legal
of course your going to say, no, i am for the Good laws.
but thats really up to the lawmakers, not the subjects, right?
@Ajay42302: To be clear, Trump doesn’t give a flying rat’s ass about limited government, individual freedom and free markets. He doesn’t give a damn about protecting the Constitution. He’s a charlatan con artist who has scammed and conned deals throughout his life, often bailing himself out off of the backs of others.
and you know this cause he is your friend?
you hang out with him?
or is it that your reading the left liberal press which you also in other spheres complain about.
did you read the times piece on trump and women, and now read the woman interviewed being upset that they portrayed her as a victim, and said things tha were untrue and she is now fighting to correct this?
all you have is the twisteing of things that depend on your ignorance to work
like “trump went bankrupt”, no, his company did, and he went into restructuring, and they allowed him to stay as leader as the investors did not think he did bad as the economy turned and he made good on all the finances, without a bail out.
right now they are trying to throw the kitchen sink and everyhing thye have to smear him, and your a sucker..
even worse, did you know the kind of things they USED to say in elections past?
Jefferson called Adams “a blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who is a hideous hermaphroditic character with neither the force and fitness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”
In turn, Adams called Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”
and you think the stuff today is nasty? not by a long shot
its just that ignorance cant call up a memory that you dont have
and so, you have nothing to compare today with if ignorant of the past!!!!!!!!!
This is the Kobyashi Maru of elections.
I can see no positive outcome. This is a no-win scenario.
@Ajay42302:
Bull.
Let me give you a solid example. I spoke to a friend of mine a week ago. 3 years ago he opened a “Vape shop”, which sells those vaporizers and the stuff that goes in them. He put his entire savings into the shop and has been doing pretty well.
Last week, he told me that the FDA has finally come out with new regulations on the Vape business. Every individual flavor (the shop sells a couple of hundred) requires FDA approval, and the approval process is estimated to cost around $1 million per flavor. Small businesses can forget about it. My friend says that he will close down his shop (and lay off his employees) by September, when the new regs go into effect – he simply can’t afford to stay in the business. The only ones who will be able to will be big business (perhaps the tobacco industry?).
So here we have another example of the government killing small businesses and giving the industry to big business. And why? Has there ever been a single instance of poisoning, where Vape juice caused a problem? Was there a need for regulation? Perhaps on some basic level, but why so draconian?
Nobody question the need for laws and regulations. But they need to be reasonable and minimal.
@Dreadnought: Maybe I am reading your statement incorrectly, but it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you are advocating for more regulations, because to do otherwise would lead to lawlessness, and on the other hand you are saying that ridiculous regulations are putting your friend out of business… I am confused.
What we need to do is to restore the 10th amendment and not allow a remote Federal Government agencies to “dictate” to the states and the cities whatever absurdity a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats dream while on acid.
We need to reign in the Federal Government and the states can do this constitutionally through the use of Article Five of the constitution. Most of the problems that we have today are due to the lawlessness of the ruling class and its parting from constitutional governance.
Call your representatives and ask them to join the convention of states movement, you can read more about it at foavc.org
@P Acosta: Sorry Dreadnought, I guess you were quoting Ajay42302:, so as Gilda Radner would have said…
“Never mind”
‘real’ conservative? is that different than a ‘true’ conservative” is that different than a ‘regular’ conservative? I’ve asked several times what a ‘true’ conservative is and have not received any responses that tell me how it is different than a ‘regular’ conservative is. Why is it an insult to be called a ‘not true conservative’ and not an insult to be called a ‘not conservative’?
Where is that ‘banner’ located? and what is the ‘claim’?
Very interesting statement. Tell us what you ‘think’ he meant when he said he would get Ford and Carrier to reverse their decisions. Do you think his plan is to ‘dictate’ that, or to make the political, economic situation such that they will reverse their decision for business reasons. It seems as if you believe he would act as a dictator. What is your ‘example’ of that? Does anyone that works for him state that he operates his businesses as ‘dictatorships’?
Are there ways to get Ford and Carrier to stay in the US that you would consider legitimate, or would you prefer that he not make an effort to keep them in the US and just say ‘bon voyage’? Are there only two alternatives, either they go or they get ‘ordered’ to remain in the US, or can some moves be made to make it more attractive to stay in the US? Or, should we just throw up our hands, declare him a dictator candidate and vote for Hillary. So instead of taking a chance on a businessman, we should just throw up our hands and vote for someone under the banner of ‘give America to Mexico and China and smile’.
@Richard Wheeler:
why did you bring Obozo into this?
Note: comment 2 of 4
@Ajay42302:
which state has ‘likes of Donald Trump” on the ballot?
Are AJay’s and BlueJays related?
@Artfldgr:
But if you are wearing assless chaps and waving a rainbow flag it’s okay.. Right. So see Richie, you have nothing to worry about there in Long Beach.
Note: this is 4, so I may stop here.
@Artfldgr:
well dodger you see in this country voters can hold both the law makers (legislators) and the law enforcers (executive branch) responsible
@Redteam:
I sort of like that law, parents often bring kids to mini golf
so no cursing.
Another issue with all these new regulations Obama has burdened Americans with is partiality or selectivity in enforcement.
Remember how the IRS only went after conservative TEA Party 501-C3’s?
They could have gone after all sorts of fund raising orgs evenly, but they USED a law on the books to single out people who might raise cash against the sitting president during his re-election season.
Someone did a study to find that the average American commits over 10 felonies every day.
But usually we skate.
They are not serious.
Like having a puddle after a rain and not reporting it to the EPA for waterways regulations.
Or muttering a cuss word under our breaths while miniature golfing in LB, CA (I have done that!)
But, because of the data collecting by the NSA (stored in Utah, BTW) the powers in office could wait until you decide to run against them before mining through your data looking for that click on a wrong site, or that phone call to the masseuse, or that Red Light Camera ticket you got, or, or, or…
In other words, get on the radar of the wrong people and you might just get the book thrown at you.
One of the TEA Party 501-C3 victms was also audited and had all sorts of code enforcements found against her AFTER she fought the IRS.
We do not have to be stuck with Trump. A third party run is not a realistic option either. If the best they can do is have Mitt Romney considering John Kasich as a candidate, it is clear that the Establishment is looking to control any third party run and has learned nothing about the seething political caldron their liberal policies have created.
The last real hope to derail a Trump nomination is for the delegates to the GOP convention to take seriously their duty to save the Republic as well as the Party from the permanent infamy of ratifying a Trump nomination. Large numbers of these delegates are loyal to Ted Cruz — far more than are Trumpsters. All they need do is exhibit half the bravery of the Founding Fathers and change the rules of the convention to unbind the delegates on the first ballot. Trump would then fall short of the magic 1237 on the first ballot, and sink further and further down on subsequent ballots.
By the time of the convention, both Trump and Clinton will have rightfully destroyed each other in a blistering attack of largely true ads. While the Trump supporters will walk out of the convention in a fit of anger, the Party can save itself by offering a solid conservative, pro-life, secure the border, respectable candidate to replace Trump. This might entail avoiding all the people who ran in the primaries. It might be a retired general or admiral or some other outstanding public figure who meets the aforementioned criteria.
While this may sound like a radical proposal, nothing would be worse for the Party and the nation than to allow us to be confronted in November with a forced choice between two of the most unfit nominees in the nation’s history.
It is time the delegates start discussing among themselves how to save the Republic by doing the right thing — no matter how much courage and integrity it will take. Our Founding Fathers did not shrink from this duty. Neither must they.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the GOP today has principles. For the past generation, they have not. They talk a good game during campaign season, but then get back in bed with special interests. They are why Trump is the presumptive candidate, based on the votes from the only part of the GOP establishment cannot control – the voters.
We the voters are willing to have an imperfect candidate – and Trump has a lot of issues – in return for a president who will shake the tree and get us out of this rut of corrupt politicians and special interests.
And if you get your way, and the GOP establishment tries to run a 3rd party candidate, you will hand over the presidency to Hillary, and YOU will be the cause of the GOP’s permanent demise as a leading party in this country. The Republican Party will go the way of the Whig Party, and it will be because the people will see that they cannot be trusted – when the primaries did not go their way (status quo, continued corruption), the GOP said “Screw the voters, we need to represent our corporate sponsors”.
If you do this, I predict that the GOP will never win more than 20% in a national election ever again.
@Dreadnought:
Where on earth did you get the idea that I want a third party run from what I said above? Read it again, please. I said a third party run was not an option and the Establishment has learned nothing about the seething caldron their liberal policies have created.
A mere plurality of a minority of Republican voters have given a delegate edge to Donald Trump, whom you admit is an “imperfect candidate.” He is so imperfect that the GOP is not only in danger of losing the presidency to Clinton, but losing the Senate and possibly even the House as well.
I am not suggesting that the delegates deny Trump the nomination only to give it to an Establishment crony. I insisted that any substitute candidate be a solid conservative, pro-life, respectable, and prepared to secure the border. I do not envisage them picking another corrupt Establishment candidate. Recall, it will take pro-Cruz delegates to accomplish this daunting task. Ted Cruz was no Establishment candidate, but a solid, consistent, outsider candidate whom the Establishment likes of McConnell despise. It is their “outsider” philosophy and principles that must triumph in order to give us a new, clean, principled candidate that can defeat Crooked Hillary by shining comparison to her corruption and radical liberalism.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
My mistake.
With a bit too much show. I saw 3 big problems with Cruz that make him a bad candidate. 1) He has a track record of being able to accomplish very little in Congress. He proposed a lot, but could not convince people to back him up. That = Lack of leadership ability. 2) He places his religious views far too far forward. I have no use for evangelicals, and don’t want one in office unless he knows how to shut up about it. Cruz does not. And 3) He’s just not likable. He will certainly not attract non-traditional voters to vote (R).
As far as his positions and platform are concerned, I am definitely closer to Cruz than to Trump on most things. But I don’t think that Cruz can win against Hillary, and if by chance he does win, I don’t think he will be able to accomplish anything useful.
Trump, as imperfect as he is, will go after Hillary with both barrels. And if he does what any businessman would – surround himself with an all-star cabinet – he might actually manage to accomplish things. I really hope he selects Newt Gingrich as a running mate. Solid conservative, the last GOP leader who actually managed to accomplish things, by by far one of the smartest people in DC.
I really wish you would read what I write a bit more carefully. Where did I say that the delegates should pick Ted Cruz to replace Trump as the nominee? I did not say that. I merely pointed out that the delegates who would lead the charge to stop Trump are also ones loyal to Cruz. From that you may infer that they would not be cronies of the Establishment. Cruz was an “outsider” candidate, just like Trump. I would expect his type of delegates would pick another outsider like Cruz and Trump, but i did not say it should be Cruz. In fact, picking Cruz would likely be a mistake, since it would look like he put his delegates up to dumping Trump for personal gain. Frankly, I believe Ted Cruz is more concerned about the country than his own candidacy, based on remarks he made to Glenn Beck.
I would hope the delegates would pick a candidate who did not run in the primaries to replace Trump — so as to avoid more fighting between various factions. A true outsider, such as a retired admiral or general or some other prominent, truly conservative American might be chosen. That is up to the delegates to decide.
But their first obligation is to stop Trump from staining the GOP with an infamy it would never live down — whether he wins or loses in November. Out of over three hundred million Americans, surely we can do better.
@boxty: I
That’s complete and total BS. The establishment has been trumps biggest endorsements, remember when he said all of Congress endorses him n Ted had no friends?
Remember all the one on one meetings with Reince throughout the campaign? Ted didn’t get that.
Remember Reince begging Trump to sign a pledge to support the GOP nominee? Why was that? To promote Trump as a faux outsider…
Remember all the GOPe govorners endorsing Trump at the time of their states primaries? But not establishment my ass.
Remember the $2,000,000,000 in free advertising by the trumpsuperpac foxnews and the rest? Ted didn’t get that.
Remember Trump not wanting any more debates once the field narrowed? Reince said ok..
Remember trump playing with Hannity n Rush for years wining n dining them for their unabated support to their conservative audiences? Admitted and written about. Ted didn’t get fair treatment by supposed conservatives.
Remember trump lying about system being rigged and establishment went along with him? System been that way for hundreds of years. Establishment all the way.
Remember how trump landed at his eventual talking points? Surrogate listened to thousands of hours of talk radio, then chose top 3 topics discussed to be headline of his campaign? Not core beliefs or principles.
Remember all the policy flip-flops hourly, daily..called on by no one? Only establishment could orchestrate that.
Finally, remember establishment Kasich getting out day after Cruz? He did his job for the establishment n got Cruz out of the way. Reince thankful.
Trump is the Hillary Clinton of the Republican Party, only worse. We know what she stands for, trump no one has any idea. And if you look at his past to try n figure it out, you’re a delusional liberal. And I’m only talking 60 days before he announced his candidacy. He’s a big govornment liberal. But that’s off limits. Well, just wait, the press loved that maverick McCain until they got him the republican nomination. Just wait. Between them and trumps self, Reince and Ryan will be found out and shoulder the blame for ruining the Republican Party!
@P Acosta:
I’m not advocating Hillary as a protector of limited government. I’m saying that following Trump off the cliff is worse. He has no interest in anything other than his interests. @Artfldgr: How you deduce that I’m saying freedom is bad or that cows are lawless (or whatever you’re saying) is beyond me. You’re actually validating my point that this has become a binary concept-that one must genuflect to the notion that we concede to every corporate whim lest they think that otherwise is a violation of freedom.@Dreadnought: Your E-cig argument is a perfect example-a job killing federal FDA move overriding local and state laws. Sounds awful and perhaps is. While I’m no expert on that industry, my understanding is that some states have lenient laws and that some of the industry is turning ecigs into a new form of addiction. So they’ve stepped in. You seem to see only the pain of job losses whereas I’m more inclined to discuss the public health ramifications. That’s where the argument should be-not job losses or government overreach or what political party supports what. Consider that a major chicken producer starts pumping more steroids or whatever into their chickens and we start seeing 10 year old boys with 44ds or other obvious problems. I’m all for government regulations in this case. Or if their chicken processing plant is in a state that’s very “unregulated” but salmonella chickens are being shipped across state lines. I approve of big bad fed stepping in.@Redteam: Is your sole purpose that of a troll, only functioning to distract or derail any argument that doesn’t compliment your agenda?
@Nanny G: I’m not sure what your point is other than to just rant about shortcomings of government agencies. So what precisely is your solution or what do you advocate. Yeah, the IRA has done bad things but other than howling-at-the-moon, what’s your point. We cannot get rid of the IRA and to argue otherwise is of utter ignorance. We can’t do it. We can downsize it, give it a new name, combine it with another agency but ultimately we have to have some sort of tax collecting function in order to maintain are military, etc. And the same applies with the EPA, FDA, etc. So all we hear is this binary “government regulations bad” coming from today’s so-called conservatives, that we must defeat such agencies and regs lest we “lose our freedoms” or such nonsense or even worse yet, lest we be some damn liberal.
And this is where Trump would be disastrous over Hillary.
Nanny why did conservatives abandon civil service jobs? Why aren’t there more teachers with conservative views?
Of course the easy answer is it is somehow the fault of liberals most of the people who post here are not part of the work force, why aren’t they in schools at least as volunteers?
I know liberals will not allow
@Ajay42302:
Let me be short and clear:
My point is that there are so many laws and rules and those are (in many cases) so vague that we are all ”criminals” so that we can all be targets of Federal Departments at any time.
IF you decide to run against, say, Harry Reid, he can get ”the goods” on you so as to slime your name. Heck, he can even get you arrested.
Then people won’t vote for you.
Good questions, John.
Faculty hiring is controlled by senior members of the faculty itself, at the departmental level.
They can hire – and do hire — only people who agree with them and share their prejudices.
Examples:
Tulane Law School has not a single Republican or conservative faculty member.
Duquesne Law School has one.
Students at the University of Michigan could not identify a single conservative on their faculty, although they could name several Marxists.
At Bowling Green, conservative professors were isolated in a research center that has no teaching responsibilities.
Out of 15 professors in the Department of Political Science at the University of Richmond, a private school with a decidedly conservative student body there is one Republican.
The only school where there seemed to be even a handful (a literal handful) was at the University of South Dakota, a state which Bush carried in the 2000 election by 26 points.
As to civil service jobs, I can’t recall a time when Dems and Reps were equally represented in them.
Even as a child, under President Eisenhower, the Post Office was predominantly Democrat.
However, until recent years Republicans had been over-represented in the military.
I think the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the beginning of openly gay as well as the demonizing of Christians in the military has caused a drop off of Republican’s grown children looking at the military as a place they want to be.
@Nanny G: I actually agree with you to a large extent. And I know that when the feds get hold of you, they don’t let go.
What I don’t get is by what possible logic anyone thinks that Donald Trump would somehow work to solve this problem. This guy has clearly demonstrated how he retaliates against anyone who opposes him, offers to pay for the legal fees of his thugs to beat up people who heckle him, advocates scraping the Geneva convention and having open torture for anyone kin to anyone that he feels like torturing. Trump doesn’t care about due process and he doesn’t mind throwing anyone under the bus or ruining mass quantities of people’s lives in order to offset his losses.
Again, I’m not sure I can actually pull the Hillary lever but Trump is far worse in rotten government and abusive power than she is. And the type of people he would put in place would be as well.
@Nanny G: well of course faculty hiring at the University level also requires advanced degrees.i am not sure tfat would be something that most conservatives woukd have
I was thinking more about volunteering or applying to work in a local public school. Aren’t conservatives always complaining about primary schools ? There is a huge shortage of teachers and volunteers/teaching assistants. You have to start change at the bottom, not the top
Traditionally over the last 60 years civil service jobs paid less than working in the private sector. Was that the reason conservatives chose not to work in that sector? Why don’t more conservatives choose to work in those parts of the government (IRS. EPA, BLM) tgatbtgeyvare always complaining about ?
@Ajay42302:
Unless you live in one of the 12,or so battleground states you certainly have no reason to not vote or write in whatever you wish as a protest vote
In a battleground state you might have to consider voting for the less of two bad choices
@john:
can and do are worlds apart
@Ajay42302:
So are you saying to be concerned about a lose of Liberty with either is non-sense?
Another reason I won’t vote the establishment trump is that I haven’t yet heard him even so much as mention liberty or constitution. A true post-constitution society is evidently his liberal view of our society and governance.
@Lew T:
What if he takes people like Newt Gingrich as his running mate? Gingrich is a historian and an expert on the Constitution (as opposed to the supposed expert in the WH today.) Would that sway your vote?
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.: 24
I notice that you could not list the name of one of these rare breeds. The closest you could come was maybe a retired General or Admiral. If you can’t think of a single one, it’s probably because one doesn’t exist.
@Dreadnought: Yeah, why not 2 disgraced womanizers in the WH?
From a politically strategic view, I think he would do well to pick Scott Walker. He isn’t likely to get the union vote anyways and Walker is the t-baggers dream. Plus, it might loosen up those Koch purse strings. Now that Trump has admitted to lying about self-funding with no ties to special interests and has put himself up to the highest bidders, it could help him.
@JayBird: 28
You are the troll that just showed up after the big announcement that Hillary’s team was hiring thousands of trolls for her campaign. I’ve been here a long time and only support the truth. Ask Richie.
@JayBird: 33
So JayBird, tell us all about Trumps actions in rotten government. What government job did he have that he was rotten at?
@Deadteam:
Your interpretation of troll doesn’t change the fact that your only objective seems to be to distract, insult, and throw your argumentative opponent off guard in order to, well, do whatever it is that people of your guild do.
@JayBird:
Oh, now I see the problem. you don’t like for a spade to be called a spade.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
The voters are pissed off enough as it is. There is a reason why they are voting for Trump, but rather than deal with that, your answer is “We the delegates don’t care what you want. We are going to pick someone else to be our nominee and you can all just suck it up.” As angry as the voters are, they are not going to go for your hidden government star chamber chicaneries. You are telling them,, at the end of a high energy campaign season against the party establishment oligarchies, that the party will not accept the decision of the voters, because they are not fit to make their own decisions. (ie. “Screw what the voters want.”)
And you actually think that wont blow up in the party’s face? For a “PH.D.” you don’t seem very wise.
@Ditto:
If you would look back at my earlier posts, you will see that the “voters” actually did not pick Trump, but that the primary rules were “rigged” to give a massive lead to whoever won the early winner-take-all states. So, Trump gets to 1237 while winning merely a plurality, not a majority, of the votes — as would NOT have happened in a proportional distribution of the delegates (as you have in the Democrat primary system, it appears).
You verify my prediction that the Trump supporters will walk out in a fit of anger should the delegates use their legal power to deny the nomination to a candidate who is manifestly unfit for the highest office in the land. Nonetheless, the nation ought not be forced to pick between two of the most unfit candidates in the nation’s history: Clinton and Trump.
Since you clearly are emotionally connected to Donald Trump, I don’t expect you to see the manifest flaws that make him, as well as Hillary, unfit to be president. But the delegates bear the responsibility to remind all of us that the Party is not owned by the small fraction of a minority of Republican voters who voted Trump to a lead in the delegates, mostly because he got two billion dollars of free media exposure for acting like a four year old having a temper tantrum.
If you read my earlier posts, you will see that I do not advocate that the delegates pick some Establishment crony, like Kasich, but rather find someone fresh with a sterling reputation, such as a retired military leader. Yes, it will cause an uproar from those who blindly follow Trump off the edge of an electoral cliff. And, yes, there is always a chance Trump might win, using tactics beneath the dignity of any previous Republican nominee. But, even if he should so win, what have we won? A president who is only 90% Democrat/liberal instead of the 100% that Clinton is? A president who takes pride in having hoodwinked the conservative base?
We have another choice, provided the delegates have the courage to select a respectable, fresh candidate who knows something about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and the Christian values upon which this nation was built in the first place. If the Party’s nominee still fails, at least history will record that it offered the nation an honorable candidate — and not tie it forever to the infamy which is the substance of Donald Trump.
@Ditto:
Ditto that, and as you say, Ph D’s answer is ‘ignore the voters’ and make them vote for who we want them to vote for. Yes, that should do it.
Ph D should ask for his money back on that Ph D.
@Redteam:
On another thread, I mentioned the possibility of Scott Walker, who never really got into the primaries as such. If you look around the internet, you will see that a few military names have, in fact, been mentioned. Check out RedState.com.
@Redteam:
Trump voters do not equal “all” the voters. They remain a plurality, not a majority. Yes, Trump is finally getting majorities in the last few states, since all the other candidates have withdrawn.
Clearly, the rules must be changed in the future to prevent winner-take-all primaries, which allow a mere plurality of voters to gain a delegate majority against the wishes of the true majority of voters who voted for other candidates. Moreover, open primaries, wherein both Democrats and Independents can cross over into the Republican primary, must end. They allow the crossovers to vote for the weakest Republican, so that the Republican can lose in November.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
Why do you think your opinion in this is correct? Every registered voter in the USA has been given the opportunity to vote in a primary to select the candidate that they want to become president. Every voter had the privilege to write in any name they chose. The person that most people voted for, on the Republican side, is Donald Trump. I’m not sure how many votes you personally received, but since I’ve never heard your name, I’m gonna go with, Trump received more votes than you did. So who are you to tell the voters who they should vote for? As long as the system is what it is, the one that get’s the most votes, Trump, is the one that gets listed on the ballot.