A Few Thoughts

[Kathianne]

To my way of thinking, this board is generally a microcosm of the conservative base of GOP. Some of us pull one way, others another. Basically we want the same things, but we disagree on the methods. In reality, we do reflect what's been going on with the GOP for many years.

Some want to somehow turn the party into one that can make the federal government reflect their values and beliefs, turning those into laws that will ensure that their will be done. They want a strong federal government that reflects their values. They want their values encoded in law.

Others want the federal government to be fundamentally changed returned to something restricted by checks and balances and a federated system as laid out in the Constitution-something it hasn't been since the Civil War. Pretty much the federal government should be limited to war, borders, interstate issues, coinage, treaties, etc.

A split is inevitable methinks. Unlike the Democrats we are not going to somehow come to the meeting of the minds.

Trump isn't the problem, his statements and themes have caused those schisms to show themselves and YES the democrats are enjoying this. Conservatives? Not so much.

I'm pretty sure, have actually thought so for at least 3 election cycles, that there is going to be a 3rd party.

Here's an article related to this line of thought-forget the title, this is not being posted as a 'Trump sucks' post. While Trump may be the lightening rod, he's a symptom-not the cause. The rift is likely to cause a 3rd party, it would happen whether he's there or not:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/donald-trump-one-man-wedge-issue-threatens-gop-future_1008461.html?nopager=1


Donald Trump, a One-Man Wedge Issue, Threatens GOP Future9:50 AM, AUG 10, 2015 • BY FRED BARNES (http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/fred-barnes)

Republicans have been slow in recognizing the real damage Donald Trump is doing to their party. The harm is not to the party’s image. What Trump has done is exacerbate the increasingly bitter rift between the party’s leaders and its grass roots. He’s made the GOP’s future dicey.


The quarter of the Republican electorate Trump has attracted consists largely of this alienated group. Since he voices their resentment of Republican elites – especially their arch-enemies in Congress – he’s become their champion. And champions are hard to dethrone.

Trump doesn’t have to run as an independent to be a serious troublemaker. As long as he stays in the GOP race, the split in the party is likely to deepen and primaries may turn into nasty and divisive contests. And imagine if he wins enough delegates to disrupt the Republican convention by making demands. The media would again make him the center of attention.

“The Republican party created Donald Trump, because they made lot of promises to their base and never kept them,” Erick Erickson, the conservative editor of RedState, told Molly Ball of the Atlantic.

Erickson is right. “At this point, most of the people I encounter on radio and on the internet, they’re not really people who at the end of the day want to vote for Donald Trump,” Erickson said. “But they sure do like that he’s burning down the Republican Party that never listened to them to begin with.”

...

[Kathianne]

To clarify, if this rift does cause a 3rd party rise, the left wing of the Democrat party is going to remain in office for several cycles, barring something catastrophic.

[Gunny]

To clarify, if this rift does cause a 3rd party rise, the left wing of the Democrat party is going to remain in office for several cycles, barring something catastrophic.

Marine response: can we kill them?

[Kathianne]

Just maybe, this is the time for the split? There's never a 'safe' time for big changes, but perhaps the thinking of waiting for safe has been wrong all along?

I may be wrong, but this time to me seems the US is facing its most dire times since the Civil War. At that time the Republican Party was just born and near immediately became a force-one that won that war.

It maybe that we are in just such a decisive time and the arguments must be made and sides chosen. Hopefully we'll survive and someday fences will mend.

[Kathianne]

Marine response: can we kill them?

I'd rather see our government killing or impoverishing our enemies than fellow citizens.

[fj1200]

Marine response: can we kill them?

http://media.giphy.com/media/3CMeoq3VDNiBW/giphy.gif

[Kathianne]

http://media.giphy.com/media/3CMeoq3VDNiBW/giphy.gif

I miss Burn Notice!

[Kathianne]

Now I'm not saying that the thought of more Obama terms is tickling me, remember this? 2nd term inauguration speech:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/01/22/neville-again-4/?print=1


Neville Again: Obama Promises ‘Peace in Our Time’Posted By Ed Driscoll On January 22, 2013
No longer content to compare himself with Jimmy Carter (http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/09/17/betelgeuse-betelgeuse-betelgeuse/), Mr. Obama has moved on to quoting Neville Chamberlain in his speeches, promising a war weary nation “peace in our time,” (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/22/Obama-Peace-in-Our-Time) Joel Pollack writes at Big Peace. What could go wrong this time?



It was either an embarrassing slip, or a frightening revelation of the president’s true worldview. Either way, the words “peace in our time,” made infamous by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain as he promised an illusory peace with Adolf Hitler in 1938, should never have been in President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address (http://www.npr.org/2013/01/21/169903155/transcript-barack-obamas-second-inaugural-address). Yet they were, and went virtually unnoticed until caught (http://www.punditpress.com/2013/01/obama-promises-peace-in-our-time-in.html) by conservatives on social media.


The phrase appeared in a passage on foreign policy, in which the president pledged to defend the nation while resolving differences peacefully [emphasis added]:



And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice–not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.


Where’s his umbrella (http://old.nationalreview.com/impromptus/impromptus091902.asp)?



Beyond that, comparisons between the America left today and the appeasement-oriented England of the 1930s, I just can’t see it myself (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/200fxbyi.asp?pg=1)…

...

[Perianne]

My daughter asked me about the Trump issue last night, and I explained it this way:

I believe many Republicans see Trump as a savior to the values they hold. Yes, he has his own problems and is not a true conservative, but he is espousing many of the values conservatives hold dear. No one else is doing what he is doing, at least not in the same way.

When someone attacks Trump, these conservatives view it as a personal attack upon their own core values. As such, they respond with indignation.


I believe the Republican party has handled Trump very inappropriately. Look at this forum, for example. There is thread after thread about how terrible Trump is. While I personally can see both sides about Trump, there came a point to where I got tired of the (what I considered) trolling. With each new thread and the endless posts about how goofy Trump supporters might be, the people who share his stated values became more annoyed with the two main Trump antagonists. At some point it's gonna spill over and someone is gonna get angry.

Just my opinion.

[fj1200]

... a savior to the values they hold. ... is not a true conservative, ... the values conservatives hold dear.

What values would those be?

[Kathianne]

My daughter asked me about the Trump issue last night, and I explained it this way:

I believe many Republicans see Trump as a savior to the values they hold. Yes, he has his own problems and is not a true conservative, but he is espousing many of the values conservatives hold dear. No one else is doing what he is doing, at least not in the same way.

When someone attacks Trump, these conservatives view it as a personal attack upon their own core values. As such, they respond with indignation.


I believe the Republican party has handled Trump very inappropriately. Look at this forum, for example. There is thread after thread about how terrible Trump is. While I personally can see both sides about Trump, there came a point to where I got tired of the (what I considered) trolling. With each new thread and the endless posts about how goofy Trump supporters might be, the people who share his stated values became more annoyed with the two main Trump antagonists. At some point it's gonna spill over and someone is gonna get angry.

Just my opinion.

You're right. That's how his supporters see any criticism. The other side sees it as a response to things he's said and done. His supporters hear one thing, others see the hypocrisies. His supporters see 'firebrand', others see 'destruction without thought.'

Therein lies the schism which he reflects. What's sad is that we are all wanting many of the same things and see the dangers our current elite have given or rather not given.


What values would those be?

What I think they want to show by supporting Trump is validation that they have been unheard by their own party leadership for a long time, perhaps forever.

I'd like to think that they see liberals as a bigger threat, but after the debate reaction I'm thinking they are much more angry at the political elite of their own party. FOX would be part and parcel of that elite.

[fj1200]

What I think they want to show by supporting Trump is validation that they have been unheard by their own party leadership for a long time, perhaps forever.

I'd like to think that they see liberals as a bigger threat, but after the debate reaction I'm thinking they are much more angry at the political elite of their own party. FOX would be part and parcel of that elite.

There are more rational candidates it seems to me with far superior, and actual, conservative credentials that could use the support. I fear that there are too many who just glom on to the "talk first, 'splain later (or not at all)" ethos.

To me this all speaks to the need to educate the populace on actual conservative values even to those who already support the party. It's startling to me that even Fox is starting to anger the same people who would reliably rise to defend them before.

[Perianne]

What values would those be?

No explanation would be acceptable to those who have to ask. I personally can say that he took the firmest stance on illegal immigration. He made it front and center and for me that is enough to give him some support.

[Kathianne]

There are more rational candidates it seems to me with far superior, and actual, conservative credentials that could use the support. I fear that there are too many who just glom on to the "talk first, 'splain later (or not at all)" ethos.

To me this all speaks to the need to educate the populace on actual conservative values even to those who already support the party. It's startling to me that even Fox is starting to anger the same people who would reliably rise to defend them before.

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement here. We seem though to be a minority among this board, which as I said in the beginning is a microcosm of the conservative base. I'm not by nature 'extreme' in much, including politics. I am however conservative. I'm closer to libertarian in thinking than 'party.' Truth is, parties are about the elite, not governing.

I think those supporting Trump are 'principled' in their beliefs. Repeating myself here, they want their values and beliefs encoded in laws. Those strong in party are fighting for that. Doesn't matter which party, that's their ultimate goal.

[fj1200]

No explanation would be acceptable to those who have to ask. I personally can say that he took the firmest stance on illegal immigration. He made it front and center and for me that is enough to give him some support.

That's a cop out. Besides, others took just as firm a stance they just didn't do it so bombastically.

[Perianne]

There are more rational candidates it seems to me with far superior, and actual, conservative credentials that could use the support. I fear that there are too many who just glom on to the "talk first, 'splain later (or not at all)" ethos.

To me this all speaks to the need to educate the populace on actual conservative values even to those who already support the party. It's startling to me that even Fox is starting to anger the same people who would reliably rise to defend them before.

It is this attitude that pushes his supporters ever further away. It implies that others would feel the way you do if only they understood things as well as you do.

I support Trump... somewhat... for his stance on kick out the illegals. That does not make me any less knowledgeable about conservative values than what you, Kathianne, and Gunny have. It only means my focus is different than yours. To me the illegal situation is the most important situation of all. We stop the illegals or they will destroy any chance for conservative success.

[fj1200]

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement here. We seem though to be a minority among this board, which as I said in the beginning is a microcosm of the conservative base. I'm not by nature 'extreme' in much, including politics. I am however conservative. I'm closer to libertarian in thinking than 'party.' Truth is, parties are about the elite, not governing.

I think those supporting Trump are 'principled' in their beliefs. Repeating myself here, they want their values and beliefs encoded in laws. Those strong in party are fighting for that. Doesn't matter which party, that's their ultimate goal.

That's where the fun is. ;) I would only slightly disagree on parties, they are about winning elections... or at least should be.

[Kathianne]

It is this attitude that pushes his supporters ever further away. It implies that others would feel the way you do if only they understood things as well as you do.

I support Trump... somewhat... for his stance on kick out the illegals. That does not make me any less knowledgeable about conservative values than what you, Kathianne, and Gunny have. It only means my focus is different than yours. To me the illegal situation is the most important situation of all. We stop the illegals or they will destroy any chance for conservative success.

I think this post is a good example of what we see playing out on the larger field. The fighting within is what is going to lead to a conservative loss or liberal win, however one wants to put it.

Again, perhaps that's for the best. My guess is that many more are going to eventually not vote or vote for other parties. The liberals are not going to split.

Best guess is the next cycle will see two versions, at least, of 'conservative' parties.

[fj1200]

It is this attitude that pushes his supporters ever further away. It implies that others would feel the way you do if only they understood things as well as you do.

I support Trump... somewhat... for his stance on kick out the illegals. That does not make me any less knowledgeable about conservative values than what you, Kathianne, and Gunny have. It only means my focus is different than yours. To me the illegal situation is the most important situation of all. We stop the illegals or they will destroy any chance for conservative success.

I asked the question and you practically refused to answer.


No explanation would be acceptable to those who have to ask.

As to this focusing only on illegals... it's focusing on one thing that will still cause you to lose because you gave up your ideals on everything else. Conservatism shouldn't be about circling the wagons.

[Perianne]

I think this post is a good example of what we see playing out on the larger field. The fighting within is what is going to lead to a conservative loss or liberal win, however one wants to put it.

Again, perhaps that's for the best. My guess is that many more are going to eventually not vote or vote for other parties. The liberals are not going to split.

Best guess is the next cycle will see two versions, at least, of 'conservative' parties.

Kathianne, I hope that doesn't happen. Even though I disagree with some of the candidates, I would vote for any of them over a Democrat.

But I was one of those who refused to vote for McCain. I voted third party instead. I viewed McCain as possibly worse than Obama. I believed that then and I believe it now.

[Perianne]

As to this focusing only on illegals... it's focusing on one thing that will still cause you to lose because you gave up your ideals on everything else. Conservatism shouldn't be about circling the wagons.

I view illegal immigration as THE most important issue. Actually, at this point, it is the only issue. Again, if we lose this immigration battle, we lose it all. We do not have enough Republican voters to overcome hordes of imported Democratic ones.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, I hope that doesn't happen. Even though I disagree with some of the candidates, I would vote for any of them over a Democrat.

But I was one of those who refused to vote for McCain. I voted third party instead. I viewed McCain as possibly worse than Obama. I believed that then and I believe it now.

Which certainly was your right. Others will do the same, for as principled reasons as your own.

I don't doubt the sincerity of those supporting Trump. What is clear to me though, is that at some level they know he's not a solution, just a voice.

Many seem angry towards us that don't agree that he is what is needed. In fact, I think he's dangerous for the country in the sense that times are dangerous and it seems to me not the best time to be making 'statements' instead of looking for best choices to address the dangers.

I pray I'm wrong and that a better outcome for the long run arises. More importantly that time is on the side of that.

[fj1200]

I view illegal immigration as THE most important issue. Actually, at this point, it is the only issue. Again, if we lose this immigration battle, we lose it all. We do not have enough Republican voters to overcome hordes of imported Democratic ones.

It's not a zero-sum game to me. What's the point of winning if you've given up every other conservative value to win one. You won't be able to overcome the voters who will flee a Republican party full of xenophobes.

[Kathianne]

For the record, I view foreign policy and our economy as my most important issues today. Borders, not immigration are in my top 10.

[fj1200]

For the record, I view foreign policy and our economy as my most important issues today. Borders, not immigration are in my top 10.

We can handle immigration. We just need to win the damn election first.

[Kathianne]

We can handle immigration. We just need to win the damn election first.

Unless Hillary is indicted or Black Lives Matter derail the Democrats, I've pretty much decided the Republican Party is imploding.

Barring the above, even perhaps if the first happens, Hillary or Biden will be the next president.

[fj1200]

Unless Hillary is indicted or Black Lives Matter derail the Democrats, I've pretty much decided the Republican Party is imploding.

Barring the above, even perhaps if the first happens, Hillary or Biden will be the next president.

I think it will come around. A strong focused candidate can do wonders.

[Kathianne]

I think it will come around. A strong focused candidate can do wonders.

Time will tell, the divisions are growing.

[revelarts]

To my way of thinking, this board is generally a microcosm of the conservative base of GOP... that comment as a stand alone actually saddens me.
For various reasons, and more than many other comments i've read in a long time.




...Some of us pull one way, others another. Basically we want the same things, but we disagree on the methods. In reality, we do reflect what's been going on with the GOP for many years.
Some want to somehow turn the party into one that can make the federal government reflect their values and beliefs, turning those into laws that will ensure that their will be done. They want a strong federal government that reflects their values. They want their values encoded in law.
Others want the federal government to be fundamentally <s style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">changed</s> returned to something restricted by checks and balances and a federated system as laid out in the Constitution-something it hasn't been since the Civil War. Pretty much the federal government should be limited to war, borders, interstate issues, coinage, treaties, etc.
A split is inevitable methinks. Unlike the Democrats we are not going to somehow come to the meeting of the minds.
Trump isn't the problem, his statements and themes have caused those schisms to show themselves and YES the democrats are enjoying this. Conservatives? Not so much.
I'm pretty sure, have actually thought so for at least 3 election cycles, that there is going to be a 3rd party.
Here's an article related to this line of thought-forget the title, this is not being posted as a 'Trump sucks' post. While Trump may be the lightening rod, he's a symptom-not the cause. The rift is likely to cause a 3rd party, it would happen whether he's there or not:

To me Trump is like Obama in his early days.
He mouths a lot of vague things that somehow resonants with a large group.
Like Obama he's got no real political experience. And has the ability to claim whatever sounds good (or titillating) and no one can call him on his record outside of business.

you say some conservatives want to the constitution to go back to pre-civil war level , OK sure, but I think most of us would be satisfied if it went back to Pre WWII level, or Pre-Nixon.
many conservatives as you say just want the gov't to do what they like. constitution be hanged (except for the 2nd amendment).

Having said that I don't see the Trump with anything but very thin lips service to 1st group, and a lot of logs on the rhetorical fire to the 2nd group.

the 3rd group you haven't mentioned are the rich or primarily fiscal republicans who like his ZERO corporate tax and removal of the inheritance taxes, Vague tough talk about "protection" of U.S. companies in foreign trade etc.
I suspect IF by some tragedy that he becomes presidents THOSE promises will hit the congressional floor and executive order pen before anything on immigration, Iran or the constitution

It make me sad to think that many republicans are buying this guy.

Based on Trump's attitude, do many here think He'll REPEAL the imperialist presidential powers claimed by the last few CiCs or embrace them with some relish... to get the job done?




What values would those be?exactly.



No explanation would be acceptable to those who have to ask. I personally can say that he took the firmest stance on illegal immigration. He made it front and center and for me that is enough to give him some support.
If you can't explain it how are others suppose to join you?
"values" are suppose to have some content. They should be able to be articulated clearly so the benefits can be seen by others. even if not agreed with. And a presidential candidate should place them in the context of WHAT policies they'll try to put in place to correct them.

IMO if the racist comments is what resonate with the GOP base then well the GOP deserves to lose.
I know some Roman Catholics (conservative whites -who worked with Nancy Reagan-) who pray that we get MORE south americans in the country. why? Because they are more conservative than the home grown Americans. They are more religious and moral (strong catholics and protestants) , more family oriented, and are entrepreneurial. Pro-life And have children at replacement rates.

Immigration can be dwelt with but if the GOPs base "values" are mainly race. Well, whatever.
If this board is a microcosm, the question is moot and I've said to much already.

[Drummond]

We can handle immigration. We just need to win the damn election first.

No, FJ, you don't. What you need is for the Republicans to kick your lot out !!

As for Trump ... maybe the Dems are enjoying the controversy. But I doubt very much that they're enjoying Trump's continuing success, even despite it.

I think that two things of value come out of all this .. assuming, of course (as I do) that Trump's popularity continues on as it is. One - the Dems, in order to counter it, will have to try very hard to neutralise it. Trouble is that, Dems being Dems, they'll go to disgusting extremes in the process. The more disgusting the extreme, the more they'll show themselves up for what they truly are - no bad thing !

[.. and maybe in the process, people will take another look at Megyn Kelly's own attack, and see how their tactics match ?]

Two - in viewing Trump remaining a front-runner, the other candidates will want 'a piece of the action'. They'll want some of that appeal for themselves. So, will we see candidates adapt themselves to do what it takes to appear more Trump-esque, be it in manner, or hardline decisions and policy ?

We live in interesting times !

[Abbey Marie]

We can handle immigration. We just need to win the damn election first.

Lol, a quote reminiscent of the thinking when GWB was elected. How'd that work out?

[fj1200]

No, FJ, you don't. What you need is for the Republicans to kick your lot out !!

Your DumbF*ery aside. My lot controls Congress.


Lol, a quote reminiscent of the thinking when GWB was elected. How'd that work out?

Do you see amnesty anywhere around you?

[Abbey Marie]

Your DumbF*ery aside. My lot controls Congress.



Do you see amnesty anywhere around you?


Do you see a fence?

[Drummond]

It's not a zero-sum game to me. What's the point of winning if you've given up every other conservative value to win one. You won't be able to overcome the voters who will flee a Republican party full of xenophobes.

The more I see of your contributions to this thread, the more they read like a Leftie trying to exploit division. In fact, if we ever do get into another debate about your Leftie bona fides, I think this thread may prove to be a good contributory source ... for me.

I don't believe that Trump is a figure 'giving up Conservative values', in any context. Neither, of course, do the Dems. If they did, they'd cease opposing him, and just let him get on with it, without commentary.

And yet, FJ, your own commentary continues.

I've seen comment, by the way, about Trump's idea of not only building a wall (or fence), but making the Mexicans pay for it. That seems to me to be a much-needed stance, deserving of applause !

Anyone questioning how Trump would arrange it, need only reflect on the method readily available. Payment needn't be direct, it just needs to happen. So ... is Mexico a country you trade with to any sizeable extent ? I'd have to believe it was, and is ! AND .. who needs that trade more, America, or Mexico ?

Yes, getting Mexico to pay is easy to envisage. Who else but Trump is likely to have the Conservative grit and determination to see it through ?:salute:

[Drummond]

Your DumbF*ery aside. My lot controls Congress.

Do they really ?

I'm surprised that you're not better informed.

[Perianne]

Drummond, please tell the other conservatives here what happens to your country with unlimited immigration and why immigration is the #1 issue for America.

[Abbey Marie]

What values would those be?

fj, I love ya, but really, this is all I ever see from you. I kind of envision you as an alligator lying in wait to attack the vulnerable. But here, vulnerable=any part of any post that isn't 100% iron-clad. Or, maybe to put it more professionally, it's like having our own version of a newspaper's fact-checker. There is a value in that role for sure. And it is especially helpful anytime people are claiming factual information.

But, on a message board, sometimes people are feeling excited about a topic, and don't want to research every way but Tuesday before posting about it. Sometimes, people don't want to write a thesis on the topic. And sometimes, people just want to put their feelings on paper. And there is value in that as well. It keeps things moving and lively. And even friendly at times.

So, I'm not suggesting that you should stop calling people on actual BS. But I think to be fair, it would be nice to see you post some original threads of your own. and to see you lay out your feelings in your posts, instead of just second-guessing others'.

Then we can all have a shot at second-guessing your feelings and thoughts and beliefs, too.

I'll close with your fave emoticon- :poke:

[fj1200]

Do you see a fence?

I'll take that as a no, you don't see amnesty. And we should get a fence, I don't disagree.


fj, I love ya, but really, this is all I ever see from you. I kind of envision you as an alligator lying in wait to attack the vulnerable. But here, vulnerable=any part of any post that isn't 100% iron-clad. Or, maybe to put it more professionally, it's like having our own version of a newspaper's fact-checker. There is a value in that role for sure. And it is especially helpful anytime people are claiming factual information.

But, on a message board, sometimes people are feeling excited about a topic, and don't want to research every way but Tuesday before posting about it. Sometimes, people just want to put their feelings on paper. And there is value in that as well. It keeps things moving and lively. And even friendly at times.

So, I'm not suggesting that you should stop calling people on actual BS. But I think to be fair, it would be nice to see you post some original threads of your own. and to see you lay out your feelings in your posts, instead of just second-guessing others'.

Then we can all have a shot at second-guessing your feelings and thoughts and beliefs, too.

I'll close with your fave emoticon- :poke:

I've been asking questions for seven years. Do you only have a problem with it now? People make these broad-based proclamations and then are unable/unwilling to follow up on their beliefs. If Trump really does have these conservative values he's voicing for the unvoiced then I imagine that it would be nice if his supporters could actually put them into words.

And if that's all you see then you're not really looking. Besides, Kathianne is the world's best topic poster so in the great capitalist tradition of division of labor I submit to her expertise. I await you standing up for bullypulpit in my heinous question posting of his broad-based proclamations. :)

[fj1200]

The more I see of your contributions to this thread, the more they read like a Leftie trying to exploit division. In fact, if we ever do get into another debate about your Leftie bona fides, I think this thread may prove to be a good contributory source ... for me.

I don't believe that Trump is a figure 'giving up Conservative values', in any context. Neither, of course, do the Dems. If they did, they'd cease opposing him, and just let him get on with it, without commentary.

You're delusional imagination aside nobody even really knows what his conservative values are, see Kathianne's thread on the subject.


And yet, FJ, your own commentary continues.

I've seen comment, by the way, about Trump's idea of not only building a wall (or fence), making the Mexicans pay for it. That seems to me to be a much-needed stance, deserving of applause !

Anyone questioning how Trump would arrange it, need only reflect on the method readily available. Payment needn't be direct, it just needs to happen. So ... is Mexico a country you trade with to any sizeable extent ? I'd have to believe it was, and is ! AND .. who needs that trade more, America, or Mexico ?

Yes, getting Mexico to pay is easy to envisage. Who else but Trump is likely to have the Conservative grit and determination to see it through ?:salute:

You're fricking delusional. Make the Mexicans pay for it!?! :laugh:


Do they really ?

I'm surprised that you're not better informed.

Yeah, they're called Republicans.


Drummond, please tell the other conservatives here what happens to your country with unlimited immigration and why immigration is the #1 issue for America.

Um, we don't have unlimited immigration.

[Drummond]

Drummond, please tell the other conservatives here what happens to your country with unlimited immigration and why immigration is the #1 issue for America.

Happily !

There are two current issues regarding the cause of immigration here in the UK.

One is that the main amount of damage has already been done, courtesy of past Socialist laxity on the issue (indeed, Labour at one point tried to demonise anyone objecting to it, saying they were betraying themselves as racist for so much as thinking of objecting).

The other is that the EU's open-border policy forbids anything other than open borders between EU citizens of EU Member States. David Cameron promised stiff border controls, but he had no way of delivering on them.

Anyway .. as for practical effects, well .. one is a 'ghetto-isation' of major cities. People come in, with their standards and beliefs, but have little to no interest in integrating. Rather, they make pocket 'clone' communities of the type that they prefer to see.

Labour, in exercising their 'racism' imperative, bent over backwards to accommodate them, saying this was 'multiculturalism' (their particular version) in action, of a type we should be proud of. So, social services bent to their needs, seemingly interminably. Whole administrative tiers opened up to work with that in mind. And, of course, our benefits system was made ever-more attractive to them, over a period of years.

This is why so many illegals are massing on the French side of the Eurotunnel, determined not to quit until they reach Britain - also why it's a recurring problem that just will not go away. They cling on to the belief that British streets are paved with gold. Ever-more numbers of people, in their many thousands, want an easier life, paid for by the State. It's creating chaos for both England and France. People have died trying to cross the Channel.

The more State machinery pays for them, so the greater the expectation is that it continues .. no matter how many people are involved.

We have the likes of Choudary, trying to declare 'Sharia-controlled zones' where the local Muslim population is high. We have London schools, coping with children speaking THREE HUNDRED languages, between them. We have social services creaking under the strain. Housing needs having to cater for the numbers arriving. Communities where you'd be hard-pressed to hear English spoken (I found that a lot, on London buses, especially in the Socialist paradise of Tottenham).

We have indigenous businesses that fail, because ethnically-run and ethnically owned ones better cater to immigrant needs.

There's one notable exception, relatively speaking. It's all good for the building trade. There's always a demand for Mosque-building, for example ...

Cameron is passing new laws designed to deter people from thinking they'll get an easy ride of it, but as I've said, the damage is done. Even IF we could close our borders tomorrow, the existing pocket communities will still grow. Demanding deference to THEM.

We have a London Mayor who needs Muslim votes, so needs to defer to them, because the balance of voting power, in London, now resides with them.

Unrestrained immigration is an excellent way to murder a culture, and cripple prosperity, since so much of it has to be channelled, via taxation, into benefits and building an infrastructure to cope.And of course, there are manpower needs associated with trying. Enter outfits like the NHS, recruiting from all parts of the world, to cater for those needing treatment. Some will have paid for treatment, over many years, through taxation. Some will not.

Perianne, hope this lot helps !

[Drummond]

1. You're delusional imagination aside nobody even really knows what his conservative values are, see Kathianne's thread on the subject.

2. You're fricking delusional. Make the Mexicans pay for it!?! :laugh:

Curious, that. You deny knowledge of his Conservative values, then continue on by addressing one of his expressions of them !

And you hate the idea of Mexixco paying for a fence, FJ ? 'Enlighten' me, is this an Obama position ?


Yeah, they're called Republicans.

No, I'm sure the Republicans are very informed about who controls Congress (after all, they SHOULD be). My point was that YOU seemed not to be.

Please keep up, FJ .. :laugh:


Um, we don't have unlimited immigration.

Does Obama regret that ?

Please advise.

[fj1200]

Curious, that. You deny knowledge of his Conservative values, then continue on by addressing one of his expressions of them !

And you hate the idea of Mexixco paying for a fence, FJ ? 'Enlighten' me, is this an Obama position ?

:rolleyes: Any idiot can have a conservative position. You even think you have a couple. Good luck getting Mexico to pay for a fence.


No, I'm sure the Republicans are very informed about who controls Congress (after all, they SHOULD be). My point was that YOU seemed not to be.

Please keep up, FJ .. :laugh:

Have you pretty much given up on any rational discussion and are in full admission of being a troll?


Does Obama regret that ?

Please advise.

WTF is wrong with you?

[Drummond]

fj, I love ya, but really, this is all I ever see from you. I kind of envision you as an alligator lying in wait to attack the vulnerable. But here, vulnerable=any part of any post that isn't 100% iron-clad. Or, maybe to put it more professionally, it's like having our own version of a newspaper's fact-checker. There is a value in that role for sure. And it is especially helpful anytime people are claiming factual information.

But, on a message board, sometimes people are feeling excited about a topic, and don't want to research every way but Tuesday before posting about it. Sometimes, people don't want to write a thesis on the topic. And sometimes, people just want to put their feelings on paper. And there is value in that as well. It keeps things moving and lively. And even friendly at times.

So, I'm not suggesting that you should stop calling people on actual BS. But I think to be fair, it would be nice to see you post some original threads of your own. and to see you lay out your feelings in your posts, instead of just second-guessing others'.

Then we can all have a shot at second-guessing your feelings and thoughts and beliefs, too.

I'll close with your fave emoticon- :poke:

I for one would welcome that. The result could be most instructive.

[Drummond]

:rolleyes: Any idiot can have a conservative position. You even think you have a couple. Good luck getting Mexico to pay for a fence.

I thought I'd covered that ? Tell me, does Mexico trade with the US ? And do they need that trade, more than you do ? Do you see NO latitude for remedial adjustment ?


Have you pretty much given up on any rational discussion and are in full admission of being a troll?

Not at all. I'd always defer to experts at such things ... were I ever inclined to indulge, that is.

Do you charge reasonable rates ?


WTF is wrong with you?

Not a thing.

... you ?

Now, do you have an answer for me, regarding what I'd asked ? Not least to satisfy the demands of reasonable, rational discussion, FJ ...

[gabosaurus]

To clarify, if this rift does cause a 3rd party rise, the left wing of the Democrat party is going to remain in office for several cycles, barring something catastrophic.

I have been telling you this all along. The more radical right-wing faction holds this absurd notion that somehow Trump is going to win over mainstream American voters. Which is not possible. At the most, Trump appeals to 20 percent of voters.
Anyone who champions Trump into the 2016 election cycle needs to realize that his candidacy, whether on a GOP or independent ballot, pretty much guarantees that the Dem candidate will win. If it is Hillary Clinton, then you get eight years of Clinton.
If Trump runs as the GOP candidate, not only will he loses, but he will take down quite a few conservative House and Senate members with him.

Want to see Hillary Clinton in the White House with Dem House and Senate? Keep supporting Trump.

[Kathianne]

I'll take that as a no, you don't see amnesty. And we should get a fence, I don't disagree.



I've been asking questions for seven years. Do you only have a problem with it now? People make these broad-based proclamations and then are unable/unwilling to follow up on their beliefs. If Trump really does have these conservative values he's voicing for the unvoiced then I imagine that it would be nice if his supporters could actually put them into words.

And if that's all you see then you're not really looking. Besides, Kathianne is the world's best topic poster so in the great capitalist tradition of division of labor I submit to her expertise. I await you standing up for bullypulpit in my heinous question posting of his broad-based proclamations. :)
Thanks for the kind words, I'm not getting in between you lovebirds!

[Kathianne]

I have been telling you this all along. The more radical right-wing faction holds this absurd notion that somehow Trump is going to win over mainstream American voters. Which is not possible. At the most, Trump appeals to 20 percent of voters.
Anyone who champions Trump into the 2016 election cycle needs to realize that his candidacy, whether on a GOP or independent ballot, pretty much guarantees that the Dem candidate will win. If it is Hillary Clinton, then you get eight years of Clinton.
If Trump runs as the GOP candidate, not only will he loses, but he will take down quite a few conservative House and Senate members with him.

Want to see Hillary Clinton in the White House with Dem House and Senate? Keep supporting Trump.

I don't think Trump will be in the General Election, other than perhaps 3rd party. It won't matter for the conservatives.

[Abbey Marie]

I'll take that as a no, you don't see amnesty. And we should get a fence, I don't disagree.



I've been asking questions for seven years. Do you only have a problem with it now? People make these broad-based proclamations and then are unable/unwilling to follow up on their beliefs. If Trump really does have these conservative values he's voicing for the unvoiced then I imagine that it would be nice if his supporters could actually put them into words.

And if that's all you see then you're not really looking. Besides, Kathianne is the world's best topic poster so in the great capitalist tradition of division of labor I submit to her expertise. I await you standing up for bullypulpit in my heinous question posting of his broad-based proclamations. :)

Thread-starting isn't all-important, and certainly varies in usefulness, but it does show a certain amount of willingness to put oneself on the line, "out there", to stand for things, so to speak.

I wasn't going to get all technical, but, since you said I'm not really looking, I decided to look...

fj1200:
Number of posts: 15,716 (7th in rank)
Number of threads started: 57 (96th in rank)

;)

[Perianne]

Thread-starting isn't all-important, and certainly varies in usefulness, but it does show a certain amount of willingness to put oneself on the line, "out there", to stand for things, so to speak.

I wasn't going to get all technical, but, since you said I'm not really looking, I decided to look...

fj1200:
Number of posts: 15,716 (7th in rank)
Number of threads started: 57 (96th in rank)

;)

I looked. It appears I have started over 170 threads, but most of them go nowhere. :(

I am 85th at 1,478 posts, all of them super intelligent and meaningful! lol

[Abbey Marie]

I looked. It appears I have started over 170 threads, but most of them go nowhere. :(

I am 85th at 1,478 posts, all of them super intelligent and meaningful! lol

Hey, you haven't been here that long, Peri (2013). And I know how you feel about them going nowhere, lol. Same for me.

[Perianne]

Hey, you haven't been here that long, Peri (2013). And I know how you feel about them going nowhere, lol. Same for me.

I haven't figured out what really interests the crown around here. It's just a bit of this and that.

[Abbey Marie]

I haven't figured out what really interests the crown around here. It's just a bit of this and that.

At this point in time, candidate discussion is a winner. :salute:

[Kathianne]

Black Diamond came across this:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51044-54-of-Trump-supporters-say-they-will-vote-for-him-even-if-he-runs-3rd-party

Seems to fit in with my thoughts.

[gabosaurus]

I looked. It appears I have started over 170 threads, but most of them go nowhere. :(


I have been starting threads for over a decade and most of them go nowhere. :laugh:

What do a couple of 14 year old girls think of Donald Trump? My husband decided to ask my daughter and one of her friends. Who obviously don't give a flip about politics. Especially with the Taylor Swift concert coming up next weekend.

"Eww, he is really gross. Not cute at all!"
"Does he ever comb his hair? I guess rich people don't have to comb their hair."

*explains Trump's statements on women and Mexicans*

"Wow, what a butthole! But I guess no one can yell at him because he would fire them."
"He needs a ghost pepper taco. That would make him run for the border!"
"I wonder if he goes on those Sugar Daddy sites where rich people pay the girls with big boobs to run around with them"
"Trump doesn't need that. He owns all those bimbo beauty pageants."
"He should buy that Hair Care For Men company. He def needs new hair."

https://whimsydreamer.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/trump-hair.jpg

"Albatross! Albatross!"
"No it doesn't come with bloody wafers!"

[fj1200]

I thought I'd covered that ? Tell me, does Mexico trade with the US ? And do they need that trade, more than you do ? Do you see NO latitude for remedial adjustment ?

You're going to pass a law that demands Mexico build a wall for us? Good luck with that.


Not at all.

You don't know rational discussion when I slap you with it.


Not a thing.

From my perspective you're screwed in the head and you let your delusions run your life.

[fj1200]

Thread-starting isn't all-important, and certainly varies in usefulness, but it does show a certain amount of willingness to put oneself on the line, "out there", to stand for things, so to speak.

I wasn't going to get all technical, but, since you said I'm not really looking, I decided to look...

fj1200:
Number of posts: 15,716 (7th in rank)
Number of threads started: 57 (96th in rank)

;)

So seven years of posting and over 15,000 posts is not putting it out there? Of all the things to bring up as a metric that is by far the biggest stretch I can think of. And my reference to you not looking is what I stand for because I've said it plenty. But I will give you this much; at least you don't imagine things. ;)

EDIT:

Quick question; does my not creating threads somehow cause you to not be able to ask questions? Curious minds would like to know.

[Drummond]

You're going to pass a law that demands Mexico build a wall for us? Good luck with that.

Considering that I'm not even American, it seems to me that I'd need all the luck I could get .... :laugh::laugh::rolleyes:

But you're just not getting it (by design ?). Trade with the US is something Mexico needs. Now, does the US need that trade, anything like as badly ? They could have it curbed, IF there was a will to arrange it.

It's not as though sanction-applications are an unknown weapon to US politicians. Is it ?


You don't know rational discussion when I slap you with it.

Let me know when you start, then I'll be in a position to comment :rolleyes: .......


From my perspective you're screwed in the head and you let your delusions run your life.

... Still waiting, FJ ... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Drummond]

I have been starting threads for over a decade and most of them go nowhere. :laugh:

What do a couple of 14 year old girls think of Donald Trump? My husband decided to ask my daughter and one of her friends. Who obviously don't give a flip about politics. Especially with the Taylor Swift concert coming up next weekend.

"Eww, he is really gross. Not cute at all!"
"Does he ever comb his hair? I guess rich people don't have to comb their hair."

*explains Trump's statements on women and Mexicans*

"Wow, what a butthole! But I guess no one can yell at him because he would fire them."
"He needs a ghost pepper taco. That would make him run for the border!"
"I wonder if he goes on those Sugar Daddy sites where rich people pay the girls with big boobs to run around with them"
"Trump doesn't need that. He owns all those bimbo beauty pageants."
"He should buy that Hair Care For Men company. He def needs new hair."

https://whimsydreamer.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/trump-hair.jpg

"Albatross! Albatross!"
"No it doesn't come with bloody wafers!"

Something that Trump's detractors failed to comment on was the fact that Trump's hair was neater during the Presidential Candidate debate.

As, indeed, you're still doing .... oh, for shame, Gabby ... :laugh:

[fj1200]

Considering that I'm not even American, it seems to me that I'd need all the luck I could get .... :laugh::laugh::rolleyes:

But you're just not getting it (by design ?). Trade with the US is something Mexico needs. Now, does the US need that trade, anything like as badly ? They could have it curbed, IF there was a will to arrange it.

It's not as though sanction-applications are an unknown weapon to US politicians. Is it ?

Trade with Mexico is something the US needs as well. I don't advocate starting a trade war over the ridiculous demand to get another country to pay for a US fence. That's something that lefties like you do. I'll add that to your big government way of thinking.


Let me know when you start, then I'll be in a position to comment :rolleyes: .......

Slapping you around? You've been in denial for quite some time.


... Still waiting, FJ ... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You getting a clue is up to you.

[Drummond]

Trade with Mexico is something the US needs as well.

But, AS BADLY ?

The clue was in my wording, FJ.


I don't advocate starting a trade war over the ridiculous demand to get another country to pay for a US fence. That's something that lefties like you do. I'll add that to your big government way of thinking.

Your use of the word 'lefties' suggests you were talking to yourself. I'd watch that, if I were you.

And in fact, I'm unaware that you have any strong solution of your own as to how that fence is arranged. You are invited to prove me wrong on that (.. probably a challenge you'll duck, to add to the tally, but DO show me otherwise ..).


Slapping you around? You've been in denial for quite some time.

I've never been in de Nile. Nor yet the Euphrates. If it helps .. I've been in de bath very recently ...


You getting a clue is up to you.

What microscope magnification setting do you suggest I'll need to use for the exercise ?

[Bilgerat]

I'd like to think that they see liberals as a bigger threat, but after the debate reaction I'm thinking they are much more angry at the political elite of their own party. FOX would be part and parcel of that elite.


https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11855793_1012067035493788_6376488710058279936_n.jp g?oh=b45e148710d46e47b0ccfdd006b46afd&oe=567B1769

[fj1200]

:blah:

Listen up F*Nut. Do you have anything to add to the topic or will you continue to whine like a stuck pig?

[fj1200]

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11855793_1012067035493788_6376488710058279936_n.jp g?oh=b45e148710d46e47b0ccfdd006b46afd&oe=567B1769

Debate by pictures is not really debate at all.

[Drummond]

Listen up F*Nut. Do you have anything to add to the topic or will you continue to whine like a stuck pig?

What .. you mean, like that .. ?

[Drummond]

Debate by pictures is not really debate at all.

Granted, you might have a point.

In debate, you swap ideas, perspectives (and in your case, much 'besides' :rolleyes:) .. however, the photo posted says much of factual value, it seems to me.

Well worth seeing.

[Kathianne]

Related. A bit different take on the liberal side, but:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/are-we-headed-for-a-four-party-moment/2015/08/12/c20576be-4108-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html


Are we headed for a four-party moment? By Charles Lane August 12 at 8:15 PM


If anything’s constant in American political life, it’s the stable two-party system, jostled occasionally by third-party presidential challengers such as Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 or Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.

Yet, more rarely, at times of extreme political flux, this society has broken up into four parties.

...

Might we be headed toward another four-party moment? There are two reasons to say “yes.”

The first is the argument presented in conservative scholar James Piereson’s provocative new collection of essays, “Shattered Consensus. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594036713?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1594036713&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20)”


As the title suggests, Piereson believes, along with many other political analysts, that this country’s current political malaise represents an unstable new normal — that the formerly consensual postwar political order has “at length produced a sorting-out of Americans into conflicting and sometimes hostile political, social and geographical groups. The most obvious historical precedent we have for such a configuration is the one that developed in the 1850s.”

...

The second reason to speculate on a four-party moment is the course of the current presidential campaign, which has been more about the internal struggles of Republicans and Democrats than the differences between the two parties.


In each party, the source of division is an ideologically purist voter “base” (left-wing Democrats, right-wing Republicans) fed up with what it perceives to be the past corrupt compromises of the party “establishment,” which allegedly takes its votes for granted.


To be sure, this dynamic is especially pronounced on the Republican side, where the tea party movement against Republicans In Name Only started at the end of the George W. Bush administration.

...

[fj1200]

This...


No. I have nothing to add.

... would have saved you valuable internets.


Granted, you might have a point.

In debate, you swap ideas, perspectives (and in your case, much 'besides' :rolleyes:) .. however, the photo posted says much of factual value, it seems to me.

Well worth seeing.

That particular picture means very little and the conclusion even less.

[fj1200]

Related. A bit different take on the liberal side, but:

Now that would be fun to live through. Would point to a need for some election reform IMO if so many states were to have no candidate reach 50%+1.

[Drummond]

This...



... would have saved you valuable internets.

Your very persistent rewrites, by contrast, save you nothing at all. Most especially, they don't save you from having your credibility questioned, nor yet your, ahem, sense of fair play.


That particular picture means very little and the conclusion even less.

Hard to know precisely why that is. Subject to correction ... is your attention deficit problem kicking in again ?:rolleyes:

[Abbey Marie]

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11855793_1012067035493788_6376488710058279936_n.jp g?oh=b45e148710d46e47b0ccfdd006b46afd&oe=567B1769

Bilge, no offense, and Jeb is not even in my top 5 right now, but a social event doesn't prove anything.

[SassyLady]

that comment as a stand alone actually saddens me.
For various reasons, and more than many other comments i've read in a long time.




To me Trump is like Obama in his early days.
He mouths a lot of vague things that somehow resonants with a large group.
Like Obama he's got no real political experience. And has the ability to claim whatever sounds good (or titillating) and no one can call him on his record outside of business.

you say some conservatives want to the constitution to go back to pre-civil war level , OK sure, but I think most of us would be satisfied if it went back to Pre WWII level, or Pre-Nixon.
many conservatives as you say just want the gov't to do what they like. constitution be hanged (except for the 2nd amendment).

Having said that I don't see the Trump with anything but very thin lips service to 1st group, and a lot of logs on the rhetorical fire to the 2nd group.

the 3rd group you haven't mentioned are the rich or primarily fiscal republicans who like his ZERO corporate tax and removal of the inheritance taxes, Vague tough talk about "protection" of U.S. companies in foreign trade etc.
I suspect IF by some tragedy that he becomes presidents THOSE promises will hit the congressional floor and executive order pen before anything on immigration, Iran or the constitution

It make me sad to think that many republicans are buying this guy.

Based on Trump's attitude, do many here think He'll REPEAL the imperialist presidential powers claimed by the last few CiCs or embrace them with some relish... to get the job done?



exactly.



If you can't explain it how are others suppose to join you?
"values" are suppose to have some content. They should be able to be articulated clearly so the benefits can be seen by others. even if not agreed with. And a presidential candidate should place them in the context of WHAT policies they'll try to put in place to correct them.

IMO if the racist comments is what resonate with the GOP base then well the GOP deserves to lose.
I know some Roman Catholics (conservative whites -who worked with Nancy Reagan-) who pray that we get MORE south americans in the country. why? Because they are more conservative than the home grown Americans. They are more religious and moral (strong catholics and protestants) , more family oriented, and are entrepreneurial. Pro-life And have children at replacement rates.

Immigration can be dwelt with but if the GOPs base "values" are mainly race. Well, whatever.
If this board is a microcosm, the question is moot and I've said to much already.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[SassyLady]

4 parties is scarier to me than 3 .... the possibility of a President being elected by 26% of the voting public. Hard row to hoe when 3/4 of the nation did not vote for you.

Don't know if this could happen ... it's late, I'm tired and the brain is fading. Someone please tell me if this is a possibility.

[Kathianne]

4 parties is scarier to me than 3 .... the possibility of a President being elected by 26% of the voting public. Hard row to hoe when 3/4 of the nation did not vote for you.

Don't know if this could happen ... it's late, I'm tired and the brain is fading. Someone please tell me if this is a possibility.

The author of the 4 party possibility admits that the split is much more likely on GOP side. I don't doubt that. It's philosophical. As I said originally it's been somewhat evident for at least 30 years, but Obama administration has caused the rift to widen, if this site is a microcosm.

While sharing many common ideas-adhering to government by constitution; keeping government as small as possible (leaving to the individual what they can do; small groups what they can; local government; on up.) The Federal government to it's stated areas.

Some say they want the above, but are looking more so for their social order and interests to be encoded by law, following victories at the polls. While he has no vote, Drummond articulates this viewpoint with more verbosity and passion than most. He is for a 'big government' solution, but in the image that he thinks right.

Others that consider themselves conservative would severely limit the federal government to what is enumerated powers, as far as they possibly could. They haven't a problem with a very strong military, in fact they favor it. They want strong foreign policy and are not for isolation, nor for xenophobia. They want an FAA and want a coordination for things like medical issues. They can see the benefits to the country for something like FEMA, but not the way it works currently. Other than issues of those types, they want the fed out of everyday minutia of our lives. They don't want a president that interjects himself in local issues.

This second group and the first have some very big differences in what government should be like. There's also big differences in whom they believe are like them. There's inclusiveness vs exclusiveness problems.

Indeed, over time at the local levels the differences maybe even more striking. Time will tell.

I don't see the Democrats imploding into two parties. I think most of the independents have been disenfranchised over the years from them.

The split of the conservatives may well draw independents towards one of the sides. Which would bring it all back to 3 parties.

[SassyLady]

Others that consider themselves conservative would severely limit the federal government to what is enumerated powers, as far as they possibly could. They haven't a problem with a very strong military, in fact they favor it. They want strong foreign policy and are not for isolation, nor for xenophobia. They want an FAA and want a coordination for things like medical issues. They can see the benefits to the country for something like FEMA, but not the way it works currently. Other than issues of those types, they want the fed out of everyday minutia of our lives.

This resonates with me.

[Drummond]

The author of the 4 party possibility admits that the split is much more likely on GOP side. I don't doubt that. It's philosophical. As I said originally it's been somewhat evident for at least 30 years, but Obama administration has caused the rift to widen, if this site is a microcosm.

While sharing many common ideas-adhering to government by constitution; keeping government as small as possible (leaving to the individual what they can do; small groups what they can; local government; on up.) The Federal government to it's stated areas.

Some say they want the above, but are looking more so for their social order and interests to be encoded by law, following victories at the polls. While he has no vote, Drummond articulates this viewpoint with more verbosity and passion than most. He is for a 'big government' solution, but in the image that he thinks right.

Others that consider themselves conservative would severely limit the federal government to what is enumerated powers, as far as they possibly could. They haven't a problem with a very strong military, in fact they favor it. They want strong foreign policy and are not for isolation, nor for xenophobia. They want an FAA and want a coordination for things like medical issues. They can see the benefits to the country for something like FEMA, but not the way it works currently. Other than issues of those types, they want the fed out of everyday minutia of our lives. They don't want a president that interjects himself in local issues.

This second group and the first have some very big differences in what government should be like. There's also big differences in whom they believe are like them. There's inclusiveness vs exclusiveness problems.

Indeed, over time at the local levels the differences maybe even more striking. Time will tell.

I don't see the Democrats imploding into two parties. I think most of the independents have been disenfranchised over the years from them.

The split of the conservatives may well draw independents towards one of the sides. Which would bring it all back to 3 parties.

Thanks, Kathianne.

A 'small' amendment to the above, if I may ?

It's my hope that you're not buying into the rot that FJ loves to disseminate.

Here's my 'take' on 'Big Government' .. as I've repeatedly explained to FJ (though he prefers not to heed me) - I'm only as much in favour of 'Big Government' as it is NECESSARY to be.

In this, I copy Margaret Thatcher's own outlook. She was as Small Government as she felt it was practicable to be. That said, she was known to both favour, and apply, Big Government solutions to situations and crises just because they provided effective answers. The simple fact is that she couldn't have been nearly as effective a politician as she was, not have achieved anything like as much of a meritorious nature as she in fact did, unless she'd been pragmatic enough to go the 'Big Government' route when it was called for.

Our problems, such as curbing terrorist propaganda, or of cracking down on Union militancy .. what else would've sufficed ?

Margaret wanted people to be as INDEPENDENT of Governmental controls as possible, wanting people to be self-reliant rather than turning to the State for everything. This she believed in with much passion. However, Big Government did play its role in her brand of leadership, and this was because it HAD to. You can only solve certain problems in that way.

In your case: Homeland Security, for one. How else do you, as a country, defend so effectively against terrorist planning and incursions on your home turf ??

Answer: you can't. It's that simple.

[Kathianne]

Thanks, Kathianne.

A 'small' amendment to the above, if I may ?

It's my hope that you're not buying into the rot that FJ loves to disseminate.

Here's my 'take' on 'Big Government' .. as I've repeatedly explained to FJ (though he prefers not to heed me) - I'm only as much in favour of 'Big Government' as it is NECESSARY to be.

In this, I copy Margaret Thatcher's own outlook. She was as Small Government as she felt it was practicable to be. That said, she was known to both favour, and apply, Big Government solutions to situations and crises just because they provided effective answers. The simple fact is that she couldn't have been nearly as effective a politician as she was, not have achieved anything like as much of a meritorious nature as she in fact did, unless she'd been pragmatic enough to go the 'Big Government' route when it was called for.

Our problems, such as curbing terrorist propaganda, or of cracking down on Union militancy .. what else would've sufficed ?

Margaret wanted people to be as INDEPENDENT of Governmental controls as possible, wanting people to be self-reliant rather than turning to the State for everything. This she believed in with much passion. However, Big Government did play its role in her brand of leadership, and this was because it HAD to. You can only solve certain problems in that way.

In your case: Homeland Security, for one. How else do you, as a country, defend so effectively against terrorist planning and incursions on your home turf ??

Answer: you can't. It's that simple.

I saw the 'big government' difference in the discussion we had regarding 'libertarianism.' It's your response to issues you feel insurmountable. The problem though is in the issues you choose. Big government is necessary for security in the sense of armed services and securing the borders; building a fence. DHS isn't a requirement, that's like saying every individual is irreplaceable. The country struggled on before DHS it would after its demise.

BTW, when you throw down a line like the last, you've already lost whatever your point was.

[red state]

I view illegal immigration as THE most important issue. Actually, at this point, it is the only issue. Again, if we lose this immigration battle, we lose it all. We do not have enough Republican voters to overcome hordes of imported Democratic ones.

That, ALONE, I can live with on an issue that we should ALL join together. Gunny asked if we can KILL them. It may come to that but for now, we can, at the very least, rule out JEB, Rubio, Fatty and a few others on this issue. I would have supported 'Preacher' a few years ago but not now so my best bet is on Cruz.

[fj1200]

:blah:

Are you going to whine or debate?

[fj1200]

It's my hope that you're not buying into the rot that FJ loves to disseminate.

Here's my 'take' on 'Big Government' .. as I've repeatedly explained to FJ (though he prefers not to heed me) - I'm only as much in favour of 'Big Government' as it is NECESSARY to be.

:laugh: I only repeat what you say. Your problem is that any problem always requires government to "necessarily" be bigger.

[Kathianne]

More hits over the head towards inevitable split:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/21/are-republicans-for-freedom-or-white-identity-politics/


Are Republicans For Freedom Or White Identity Politics?
(http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/21/are-republicans-for-freedom-or-white-identity-politics/)
Donald Trump could transform the Republican Party into a coalition focused on white identity politics. We've seen this in Europe, and it's bad.

...

[revelarts]

More hits over the head towards inevitable split:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/21/are-republicans-for-freedom-or-white-identity-politics/


Outstanding Commentary very well stated.
One Quote that aligns perfectly with my view


....Trump’s brand of Jacksonian populism is perfectly tailored for this sentiment. He would throw the Constitution and the rule of law to the winds in pursuit of an aggressive promise of unilateral change – and they are fine with that. What we are hearing now from the Trump-supporting right is akin to the Roman people’s call for the dissolution of the Senate: the demand to install a strong horse, the outsider who will fix all things, the powerful man who promises he will, at long last, get things done for the people. As Alex Castellanos writes at CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/opinions/castellanos-trump-strongman/index.html)
Trump is more than a legacy of Republican inaction. He is the inevitable result of decades of progressive failure. He is where frustrated nations turn when top-down, industrial age government fails to deliver what it promised and presents chaos instead. When a government that has pledged to do everything can’t do anything, otherwise sensible people turn to the strongman. This is how the autocrat, the popular dictator, gains power. We are seduced by his success and strength.


For those who believe Barack Obama has ruled like an Emperor, Trump offers them their own replacement who has the appeal of a traitor to his class, dispensing entirely with the politeness of the politically correct elites and telling it always and forever like it is. If the president is to be an autocrat, let him be our kind of autocrat, these supporters say. It’s our turn now, and we want a golden-headed billionaire with the restraint of the bar fly and the tastes of Caligula, gliding his helicopter down to the Iowa cornfields like a boss. He’ll show Putin what for.

[Kathianne]

Outstanding Commentary very well stated.
One Quote that aligns perfectly with my view

I have to agree. The longer he's been at this, the higher he's going in the polls. I have to believe there is something afoot here. It seems that a significant portion of the electorate, and they are not all 'far right' have decided at least for now, that they'd really love a strong tyrant. Of course they aren't saying that, but they have said that really the Constitution is really too cumbersome to be followed, 'look where we are.'

It's the same as those who say that small government is preferable, but sometimes practicality of a 'strong government solution' is better. Doesn't matter in what area is being addressed, as long as the 'solution' is to their liking.

[fj1200]

Outstanding Commentary very well stated.
One Quote that aligns perfectly with my view


....Trump’s brand of Jacksonian populism

Populists should be run away from and that right quick.

[Kathianne]

Populists should be run away from and that right quick.

The worst of populism has much in common with the worst of nationalism. Both can be very dangerous.

[Kathianne]

Returning to my civil mode.

The problem the conservatives have is that many within their tent want something 'easy' and the way they want it. Much is just hoping on fairy dust working this one time.

Then there are those who understand that achieving change, any substantial change, is hard and takes more than an election cycle. Those two groups are moving in polar opposite directions:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-21/candidates-like-trump-feed-on-voters-doomed-expectations


Voters Want Change. Candidates Disappoint. Repeat.
462 <time class="timestamp" datetime="2015-08-21T12:30:02.478Z" itemprop="datePublished" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); text-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.00392157) 1px 1px 1px; font-family: SupriaSans, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; position: relative; letter-spacing: 0.1em; line-height: 25px; color: rgb(170, 170, 182); text-transform: uppercase; display: inline-block; margin-left: 10px;">AUG 21, 2015 8:30 AM EDT
</time>By Megan McArdle (http://www.bloombergview.com/contributors/megan-mcardle)

...

But let's look past what seems to be motivating these voters. The goals they have in mind aren't illegitimate: to see value in a lower level of immigration, to wish that Asian markets were as open to our goods as ours are to theirs, or to think that more should be done to prevent people from entering this country illegally.


But Trump's supporters seem to think that he will somehow escape the constraints that have prevented other politicians from addressing those priorities, because finally here we have a candidate with sufficient will and imagination to unleash the full powers of the presidential Green Lantern ring. End birthright citizenship! Get Mexico to pay to build a wall! Force companies to build more stuff here! How? By being really tough. Don't ask for details.


That might work in elections. But then politics is all details. And each of those tiny little details has to be endlessly negotiated, because the system is set up precisely to frustrate a powerful guy with a big idea. You may recall your middle school social studies teacher talking about "checks and balances." This is what that looks like. Kryptonite, if you will.

...

[fj1200]

Returning to my civil mode.

The problem the conservatives have is that many within their tent want something 'easy' and the way they want it.

Yup, and conservatism isn't "easy," it takes educating the populace and showing why less government is superior.

[revelarts]

Returning to my civil mode.
The problem the conservatives have is that many within their tent want something 'easy' and the way they want it. Much is just hoping on fairy dust working this one time.
Then there are those who understand that achieving change, any substantial change, is hard and takes more than an election cycle. Those two groups are moving in polar opposite directions:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-21/candidates-like-trump-feed-on-voters-doomed-expectations


A lot of conservatives say they want "change" to smaller gov't, and the constitution but they show they really don't.
A lot of conservative just want what they want. this cycle it's "immigration reform" During the W years it was "safety" from "another 9-11" and terrorism. Smaller gov't doesn't mater, constitution doesn't matter, just "keep me safe"

politics tends to be about fear on the right and left.

And it seems for many on the right the biggest fear theme is foreigners, aliens and not 'regular people'.
Domestically and internationally. And the politicians play that drum to get them vote early and often.

talk about smaller gov't, and the constitution and freedoms doesn't get a crowd or votes
But talk about aliens invading, muslims gonna get your babies, minorities moving in next door... that gets emotions, crowds and votes stirred up for the party.

Abortion meh.. grumble but fergetaboutit,
Banker Bail outs grumble but fergetaboutit,
Bankers steal billions whatyoutalkingboutwillis grumble but fergetaboutit,
President goes to war without congress.. well if i like the war it's Ok... if not it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Losing the 4th amendment grumble but fergetaboutit,
Losing the 5th amendment don't grumble if it just applies to other people but fergetaboutit,
Losing the 7th and 8th amendment don't grumble if it just applies to other people but fergetaboutit,
Losing the 2th amendment grum...HEY ... WAIT A $*%&@#(@ MINUTE!!! IT"S UNCONSTITUTIONALLLL tyranny is what it is i tells YA, the Founders are ROLLING OVER in da grave!!!!

Add your small gov't and constitutional issue to the list... then for most add... grumble but fergetaboutit.

I still say Ron Paul was the small gov't and constitution candidate of our generation. but conservatives really didn't want him.
Some who do really want small gov't and more constitutional gov't rejected him because - he was TOO small gov't for their taste, too much change, and not warlike enough, "MY SAFETY!" or because of his so called "racist" views. But it's funny none of the typical group of right leaning racist types adopted him as their poster child on that. Or felt one with him as "telling it like it is" "saying out loud what the 'real people' are thinking" on minorities like they have with Trump. odd.

[indago]

Famous Quote:

"We will have only ourselves to blame for what happens to us"

[Kathianne]

A lot of conservatives say they want "change" to smaller gov't, and the constitution but they show they really don't.
A lot of conservative just want what they want. this cycle it's "immigration reform" During the W years it was "safety" from "another 9-11" and terrorism. Smaller gov't doesn't mater, constitution doesn't matter, just "keep me safe"

politics tends to be about fear on the right and left.

And it seems for many on the right the biggest fear theme is foreigners, aliens and not 'regular people'.
Domestically and internationally. And the politicians play that drum to get them vote early and often.

talk about smaller gov't, and the constitution and freedoms doesn't get a crowd or votes
But talk about aliens invading, muslims gonna get your babies, minorities moving in next door... that gets emotions, crowds and votes stirred up for the party.

Abortion meh.. grumble but fergetaboutit,
Banker Bail outs grumble but fergetaboutit,
Bankers steal billions whatyoutalkingboutwillis grumble but fergetaboutit,
President goes to war without congress.. well if i like the war it's Ok... if not it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Losing the 4th amendment grumble but fergetaboutit,
Losing the 5th amendment don't grumble if it's just applies to other people but fergetaboutit,
Losing the 7th and 8th amendment don't grumble if it's just applies to other people but fergetaboutit,
Losing the 2th amendment grum...HEY ... WAIT A $*%&@#(@ MINUTE!!! IT"S UNCONSTITUTIONALLLL tyranny is what it is i tells YA, the Founders are ROLLING OVER in da grave!!!!

Add your small gov't and constitutional issue to the list... then for most add... grumble but fergetaboutit.

I still say Ron Paul was the small gov't and constitution candidate of our generation. but conservative really didn't want him.
Some who do really want small gov't and more constitutional gov't rejected him because - he was TOO small gov't for their taste, too much change, and not warlike enough, "MY SAFTY" or because of his so called "racist" views. But it's funny none of the typical group of right leaning racist types adopted him as their poster child on that. Or felt one with him as "telling it like it is" "saying out loud what the 'real people' are thinking" on minorities like they have with Trump. odd.

Well I did defend you as a conservative, which by definition means we won't always agree on some candidates or issues. :laugh:

I'm certainly not a Ron Paul fan, once I knew a bit about him. I'm certainly not an isolationist regarding foreign interests. Then again, I'm not xenophobic or wanting to disguise hate terminology under 'conservative' euphemisms. We know that our attitudes towards police differ, at least in some aspects. I don't have a problem with our differences, there are plenty of commonalities.

I can understand 'emergency actions' created under a crisis like 9/11 or war in general. Once such are started, they can be very difficult if not impossible to eliminate. Thus, should be used with caution. Of course, crisis and caution do not usually go hand-in-hand.

[Drummond]

Well I did defend you as a conservative, which by definition means we won't always agree on some candidates or issues. :laugh:

I'm certainly not a Ron Paul fan, once I knew a bit about him. I'm certainly not an isolationist regarding foreign interests. Then again, I'm not xenophobic or wanting to disguise hate terminology under 'conservative' euphemisms. We know that our attitudes towards police differ, at least in some aspects. I don't have a problem with our differences, there are plenty of commonalities.

I can understand 'emergency actions' created under a crisis like 9/11 or war in general. Once such are started, they can be very difficult if not impossible to eliminate. Thus, should be used with caution. Of course, crisis and caution do not usually go hand-in-hand.

And why, exactly, would you want to eliminate them ? What on earth for ???

Enemies don't cease to be enemies, just because you have chosen to relax vigilance against them !!

I'm aware that Obama has eliminated the War on Terror. So, tell me, do foreign terrorists have no more desire to do America, or Americans, harm ??

Just choosing to believe in a reality, because some Leftie or other has convinced you it's preferable to think like that, does nothing to address what is REALLY real.

I expect I'm wasting my time in telling you this, though. Am I not, Kathianne ?

[Kathianne]

And why, exactly, would you want to eliminate them ? What on earth for ???

Enemies don't cease to be enemies, just because you have chosen to relax vigilance against them !!

I'm aware that Obama has eliminated the War on Terror. So, tell me, do foreign terrorists have no more desire to do America, or Americans, harm ??

Just choosing to believe in a reality, because some Leftie or other has convinced you it's preferable to think like that, does nothing to address what is REALLY real.

I expect I'm wasting my time in telling you this, though. Am I not, Kathianne ?

If you mean that I'll buy what you tell me my sources of thinking are? Yes. You. Are. Wasting. Your. Time.

You sir, are the liberal thinking European, not I. You are in favor of government control of nearly all. You are so afraid that the people want something different than yourself, you want the government you agree with to codified it in law.

There is nothing from what I've seen, that you could not spin into a national security threat, worthy of Marines under the beds.

[Drummond]

A lot of conservatives say they want "change" to smaller gov't, and the constitution but they show they really don't.
A lot of conservative just want what they want. this cycle it's "immigration reform" During the W years it was "safety" from "another 9-11" and terrorism. Smaller gov't doesn't mater, constitution doesn't matter, just "keep me safe"

politics tends to be about fear on the right and left.

And it seems for many on the right the biggest fear theme is foreigners, aliens and not 'regular people'.
Domestically and internationally. And the politicians play that drum to get them vote early and often.

talk about smaller gov't, and the constitution and freedoms doesn't get a crowd or votes
But talk about aliens invading, muslims gonna get your babies, minorities moving in next door... that gets emotions, crowds and votes stirred up for the party.

Abortion meh.. grumble but fergetaboutit,
Banker Bail outs grumble but fergetaboutit,
Bankers steal billions whatyoutalkingboutwillis grumble but fergetaboutit,
President goes to war without congress.. well if i like the war it's Ok... if not it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Losing the 4th amendment grumble but fergetaboutit,
Losing the 5th amendment don't grumble if it just applies to other people but fergetaboutit,
Losing the 7th and 8th amendment don't grumble if it just applies to other people but fergetaboutit,
Losing the 2th amendment grum...HEY ... WAIT A $*%&@#(@ MINUTE!!! IT"S UNCONSTITUTIONALLLL tyranny is what it is i tells YA, the Founders are ROLLING OVER in da grave!!!!

Add your small gov't and constitutional issue to the list... then for most add... grumble but fergetaboutit.

I still say Ron Paul was the small gov't and constitution candidate of our generation. but conservatives really didn't want him.
Some who do really want small gov't and more constitutional gov't rejected him because - he was TOO small gov't for their taste, too much change, and not warlike enough, "MY SAFETY!" or because of his so called "racist" views. But it's funny none of the typical group of right leaning racist types adopted him as their poster child on that. Or felt one with him as "telling it like it is" "saying out loud what the 'real people' are thinking" on minorities like they have with Trump. odd.

Sure you're not just attacking Conservatives for the hell of it ?

[Drummond]

If you mean that I'll buy what you tell me my sources of thinking are? Yes. You. Are. Wasting. Your. Time.

I never doubted it.


You sir, are the liberal thinking European, not I.

That's just offensive, and you should apologise.


..are in favor of government control of nearly all.

Highly inaccurate at absolute best. I'm in favour of practicality. There are times, regardless of what you'd want to believe, when, purely in terms of practicability, NOTHING ELSE WILL SERVE. Your nation's security is a prime example. You SHOULD consider yourselves to be on a war footing, meaning that certain peacetime luxuries cannot be afforded, simply because your enemy has never CEASED to consider itself to be at war with you.

If you want to argue otherwise, can you point to anything which proves that your terrorist enemies are better disposed towards you than before ??


You are so afraid that the people want something different than yourself, you want the government you agree with to codified it in law.

Same answer. You DO what you DO to best protect people.


There is nothing from what I've seen, that you could not spin into a national security threat, worthy of Marines under the beds.

A Leftie would happily make precisely that argument, Kathianne. Lessen your alertness, when your enemies haven't themselves changed, AT ALL.

[Kathianne]

I never doubted it.



That's just offensive, and you should apologise.



Highly inaccurate at absolute best. I'm in favour of practicality. There are times, regardless of what you'd want to believe, when, purely in terms of practicability, NOTHING ELSE WILL SERVE. Your nation's security is a prime example. You SHOULD consider yourselves to be on a war footing, meaning that certain peacetime luxuries cannot be afforded, simply because your enemy has never CEASED to consider itself to be at war with you.

If you want to argue otherwise, can you point to anything which proves that your terrorist enemies are better disposed towards you than before ??



Same answer. You DO what you DO to best protect people.



A Leftie would happily make precisely that argument, Kathianne. Lessen your alertness, when your enemies haven't themselves changed, AT ALL.

Once again, I'm not a leftie. You are the big government fan. BTW, posting in caps does not make your pronouncements true or factual. Actually sort of illustrates your insecurities.

[Drummond]

Once again, I'm not a leftie. You are the big government fan. BTW, posting in caps does not make your pronouncements true or factual. Actually sort of illustrates your insecurities.

Perhaps my caps denote, amongst other things, sheer anger ?

You say you're not a Leftie. OK, I'm willing to accept that you fully believe that, without personal doubts being in play.

But, tell me. Which of us is determined to favour a Republican candidate whose Conservatism is WEAKER than reality demands for your country ? Remember that two out of ten score, YOUR preferred candidate earned for her stance on international and security issues ?

Me, the 'European Liberal' type, I am the one fully in favour of the STRONGEST candidate out there, the one scoring ten out of ten, the one rated as the most Conservative !!

I have stated why I am capable of supporting Big Government ... just, simply, because practicality sometimes mandates nothing less. This, for all of your arguing, you must, yourself, know is only the truth. If you doubt it, I challenge you to describe for me a small Government equivalent to the War on Terror, or, any national security issues ever needing to be addressed. You cannot do it, because it ISN'T POSSIBLE TO.

[Kathianne]

Perhaps my caps denote, amongst other things, sheer anger ?

You say you're not a Leftie. OK, I'm willing to accept that you fully believe that, without personal doubts being in play.

But, tell me. Which of us is determined to favour a Republican candidate whose Conservatism is WEAKER than reality demands for your country ? Remember that two out of ten score, YOUR preferred candidate earned for her stance on international and security issues ?

Me, the 'European Liberal' type, I am the one fully in favour of the STRONGEST candidate out there, the one scoring ten out of ten, the one rated as the most Conservative !!

I have stated why I am capable of supporting Big Government ... just, simply, because practicality sometimes mandates nothing less. This, for all of your arguing, you must, yourself, know is only the truth. If you doubt it, I challenge you to describe for me a small Government equivalent to the War on Terror, or, any national security issues ever needing to be addressed. You cannot do it, because it ISN'T POSSIBLE TO.

Much of what you just wrote illustrates why I insist you are for big government. I'm not going to continue to discuss with someone who measures things based upon a very simple website.

There are reasons indeed for many going towards Trump, whom as you've often insisted, speaks even more conservatively now than Santorum, your ideological soul mate. That there are reasons to doubt the conservativism of Trump, the electibility of Santorum, is never part of your arguments.

Usually I can just chalk that up to your place of residency, but you've injected yourself into not only our elections, you've gone beyond to personally attacking poster's political beliefs.

When pushed regarding anything you either respond: 'liberal', Thatcher, BBC, unions or national security. More to the point, you want us to base our right to decide our votes on 'global security' rather than our own priorities.

I may not be the one true Reaganite, but I do agree that government is rarely the solution-it's the problem.

[Drummond]

Much of what you just wrote illustrates why I insist you are for big government.

You insist this because you choose to. I've told you otherwise. But you reject what I say. Which means that you're calling me a liar.


I'm not going to continue to discuss with someone who measures things based upon a very simple website.

Either what it asserts is true, or, it's not. If it's not .. then show me how it's not. Alternatively, what they say has to be taken as truth.

Or, do you - again - just choose your belief ?


There are reasons indeed for many going towards Trump, whom as you've often insisted, speaks even more conservatively now than Santorum, your ideological soul mate.

You can't have it both ways. Either I'm a 'European liberal' type, or, Santorum is my 'ideological soul mate' ... WHICH ??

Unless, of course, Santorum is suddenly a 'European liberal' .. ??


That there are reasons to doubt the conservativism of Trump, the electibility of Santorum, is never part of your arguments.

Someone's 'unelectable' only because insufficient people offer electable support .. it's merely an issue of perception, not some 'physical law' that's inviolable. As of right now, certainly this early in all the campaigning, I lack reason to think that Santorum being elected is an impossibility. Santorum himself must think that, otherwise, why is he bothering to run ?

Granted, Santorum's scores in some areas were shown to be more Conservative than Trump's. If you think Trump's Conservatism is open to doubt, though, show me how. Or .. is it just wishful thinking ?


Usually I can just chalk that up to your place of residency, but you've injected yourself into not only our elections, you've gone beyond to personally attacking poster's political beliefs.

I go where logic takes me.

As for 'injected yourself into not only our elections' ... nonsense. I've a point of view, I actually dare to, and I express it. If you'd rather I didn't, then have me banned from this forum.


When pushed regarding anything you either respond: 'liberal', Thatcher, BBC, unions or national security. More to the point, you want us to base our right to decide our votes on 'global security' rather than our own priorities.

That's more revealing than you probably realise, Kathianne. Are you seriously saying that global security is not a priority for you, or for America, to concentrate on ?

So tell me. Would Obama agree, or disagree ?

And how would terrorists, like Al Qaeda or ISIS, view that thinking ?

Your reference to 'Thatcher' .. is this in reference to my proving another poster to be fraudulent ? Because I actually have proven my case !! That he chooses to deny it is neither here nor there. Truth is truth.

As to the BBC, my every post is a truthful one. Why would you object to such truths being posted ?


I may not be the one true Reaganite, but I do agree that government is rarely the solution-it's the problem.

Then I repeat an earlier challenge. Show me how there's a small Government solution / alternative, to America's security !!

[fj1200]

The worst of populism has much in common with the worst of nationalism. Both can be very dangerous.

Agreed. And even worse when rolled up in Socialism.

A couple of good hits at nationalreview.com.

Sanders and Trump: Two Populist Peas in a Pod? (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422716/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-populism)


On the left, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unapologetic about his socialist views. He offers a searing indictment of modern capitalism and vows to “transform” the country. On the right, Donald Trump, the GOP front-runner, is equally unapologetic about, well, everything, but in particular his nationalism. He lacks the vernacular of your standard nationalist, but the message comes through. He boasts that he is “the most militaristic person” in the world. His favorite national-security idea is to build a wall — and to punitively make Mexico pay for it. His second-favorite idea is to use the U.S. military to take Middle Eastern oil at gunpoint. (Thirty years ago, he wanted to seize Iranian oil; now it’s Iraq’s oil where it’s under the control of Islamic State.)

...

The establishments of both parties have proved pitifully inept in fending off their respective nationalist and socialist insurgencies. I suspect they’ll eventually succeed. But I also suspect this is not the end of the challenge, merely the beginning.

Bernie’s Strange Brew of Nationalism and Socialism (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421369/bernie-sanders-national-socialism?target=author&tid=903320)


n the Bernieverse, there’s a whole lot of nationalism mixed up in the socialism. He is, in fact, leading a national-socialist movement, which is a queasy and uncomfortable thing to write about a man who is the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. But there is no other way to characterize his views and his politics. The incessant reliance on xenophobic (and largely untrue) tropes holding that the current economic woes of the United States are the result of scheming foreigners, especially the wicked Chinese, “stealing our jobs” and victimizing his class allies is nothing more than an updated version of Kaiser Wilhelm II’s “yellow peril” rhetoric, and though the kaiser had a more poetical imagination — he said he had a vision of the Buddha riding a dragon across Europe, laying waste to all — Bernie’s take is substantially similar. He describes the normalization of trade relations with China as “catastrophic” — Sanders and Jesse Helms both voted against the Clinton-backed China-trade legislation — and heaps scorn on every other trade-liberalization pact. That economic interactions with foreigners are inherently hurtful and exploitative is central to his view of how the world works.

[Kathianne]

You insist this because you choose to. I've told you otherwise. But you reject what I say. Which means that you're calling me a liar.



Either what it asserts is true, or, it's not. If it's not .. then show me how it's not. Alternatively, what they say has to be taken as truth.

Or, do you - again - just choose your belief ?



You can't have it both ways. Either I'm a 'European liberal' type, or, Santorum is my 'ideological soul mate' ... WHICH ??

Unless, of course, Santorum is suddenly a 'European liberal' .. ??



Someone's 'unelectable' only because insufficient people offer electable support .. it's merely an issue of perception, not some 'physical law' that's inviolable. As of right now, certainly this early in all the campaigning, I lack reason to think that Santorum being elected is an impossibility. Santorum himself must think that, otherwise, why is he bothering to run ?

Granted, Santorum's scores in some areas were shown to be more Conservative than Trump's. If you think Trump's Conservatism is open to doubt, though, show me how. Or .. is it just wishful thinking ?



I go where logic takes me.

As for 'injected yourself into not only our elections' ... nonsense. I've a point of view, I actually dare to, and I express it. If you'd rather I didn't, then have me banned from this forum.



That's more revealing than you probably realise, Kathianne. Are you seriously saying that global security is not a priority for you, or for America, to concentrate on ?

So tell me. Would Obama agree, or disagree ?

And how would terrorists, like Al Qaeda or ISIS, view that thinking ?

Your reference to 'Thatcher' .. is this in reference to my proving another poster to be fraudulent ? Because I actually have proven my case !! That he chooses to deny it is neither here nor there. Truth is truth.

As to the BBC, my every post is a truthful one. Why would you object to such truths being posted ?



Then I repeat an earlier challenge. Show me how there's a small Government solution / alternative, to America's security !!

I've tried being nice. I've tried being subtle. I've tried being somewhat direct. I don't want to play your challenge game. I'm tired of your issuing challenges that are just messing up thread after thread. How about you just try to deal with the substance of what is going on today? Not in 1970's Britain.

Hint: look at the title of any given thread. Discuss topic.

[Drummond]

I've tried being nice. I've tried being subtle. I've tried being somewhat direct. I don't want to play your challenge game. I'm tired of your issuing challenges that are just messing up thread after thread. How about you just try to deal with the substance of what is going on today? Not in 1970's Britain.

Hint: look at the title of any given thread. Discuss topic.

The topic, here, is 'A Few Thoughts'.

I have - 'naughtily' - expressed some. And discussed some.

However, it turns out that you don't like my thoughts. Such as, pointing out practicalities which, logically, cannot be refuted (I have asked you to provide alternative thinking to do so, and of course, you did not).

I accept that you don't want to play my 'challenge game'. Who would, when it's so very difficult to answer my challenges ?? For example ... I could challenge you, again, to explain to me how I could simultaneously be 'a European liberal' and 'Santorum's soulmate'. You wouldn't like to be challenged on this, even though you've claimed both to be somehow true for me. You just haven't explained how.

You're short on apologies, even when they're owed.

I won't argue any more with you. It's an unproductive exercise, especially when - certainly in common with one other poster here - you resort to unjust characterisations to gain an edge in the process. You are entitled to your views. And I, for my part, am entitled to my truth.

But - thank you for this debate. It's been instructive.

[indago]

Ouch!!! That's gonna leave a mark...

[Kathianne]

Ouch!!! That's gonna leave a mark...

Hardly at all. :laugh2: I don't see you playing his games.

[Drummond]

Ouch!!! That's gonna leave a mark...

Well .. hey, I could hope so !

I prefer to reason with people, and to test out the worth of views through logical examination of them. Such as, for example, how you could possibly apply 'Small Government' methodology to the task of protecting an entire nation from the savagery of a terrorist threat against it !!

But you cannot apply reason where adherence to ideological preference 'trumps' sheer practicality, screening it out.

Except for the fact that I now have a better idea of the thinking processes of the person I ended up 'debating' with, I cannot make progress under these limiting circumstances. Debate is rendered useless when its very operational basis is short-circuited.

[Kathianne]

Well .. hey, I could hope so !

I prefer to reason with people, and to test out the worth of views through logical examination of them. Such as, for example, how you could possibly apply 'Small Government' methodology to the task of protecting an entire nation from the savagery of a terrorist threat against it !!

But you cannot apply reason where adherence to ideological preference 'trumps' sheer practicality, screening it out.

Except for the fact that I now have a better idea of the thinking processes of the person I ended up 'debating' with, I cannot make progress under these limiting circumstances. Debate is rendered useless when its very operational basis is short-circuited.

Thanks for illustrating my point of your circuitous 'logical reasoning.' Multiple times you've brought up 'defense of nation,' multiple times I've stated that is one of the enumerated areas of federal government. You still post as if I haven't. You sir are not just a big government liberal, you're a dishonest one.

[Drummond]

You sir are not just a big government liberal, you're a dishonest one.

.. And YOU accuse ME of dishonesty !!!:laugh::laugh:

You still haven't explained, given what you've just posted, how I could also be 'Santorum's soulmate' !!

Prove to me that Santorum is a 'European liberal', or, retract your absurd (and insulting) accusation !!


Multiple times you've brought up 'defense of nation,' multiple times I've stated that is one of the enumerated areas of federal government. You still post as if I haven't.

OK, let's take that on board.

How do you square that, with your apparent blanket adherence to 'Small Government' .. when, it seems to me, that you'll also accommodate its polar opposite ???

Will you now accept, on grounds of sheer practicality, that 'Small Government' methodology has its limits, that it can only be applied in those areas where it's suited to them ?

And, if you do accept this ... then you are in a position (much though you'd prefer not to ?) to agree with my viewpoint. In which case .. you should now apologise for, I quote again, ...


You sir are not just a big government liberal, you're a dishonest one.

[Kathianne]

.. And YOU accuse ME of dishonesty !!!:laugh::laugh:

You still haven't explained, given what you've just posted, how I could also be 'Santorum's soulmate' !!

Prove to me that Santorum is a 'European liberal', or, retract your absurd (and insulting) accusation !!



OK, let's take that on board.

How do you square that, with your apparent blanket adherence to 'Small Government' .. when, it seems to me, that you'll also accommodate its polar opposite ???

Will you now accept, on grounds of sheer practicality, that 'Small Government' methodology has its limits, that it can only be applied in those areas where it's suited to them ?

And, if you do accept this ... then you are in a position (much though you'd prefer not to ?) to agree with my viewpoint. In which case .. you should now apologise for, I quote again, ...

Repeat: After having multiple back and forth on defense, one of the ENUMERATED purviews of the federal government, I'm done with you. At least until you stop saying that you are 'conservative' and truthful. If anyone is owed an apology it is me, you have been consistently dishonest.

[Drummond]

Repeat: After having multiple back and forth on defense, one of the ENUMERATED purviews of the federal government, I'm done with you. At least until you stop saying that you are 'conservative' and truthful. If anyone is owed an apology it is me, you have been consistently dishonest.

Your reply ducks my previous point. You cannot and will not square your insistence upon preferring Small Government methodology with its sheer impracticality in certain areas, such as the defence of your nation. You - along with one other poster on this forum - have tried to 'rubbish' my Conservative credentials through attacking what is, when you get down to it, my totally practical approach to matters which demand that practicality !!

I'd argue about being 'European'. I'd definitely refute any suggestion that I'm any form of 'liberal' !!

Or is Santorum suddenly a 'liberal', if, as you suggested in a previous post of yours, I was his 'soulmate' ?

But never mind. You can, and are, ducking that one, too.

Trying to convert this exchange into something resembling objective discussion is a waste of time. I, too, am done with you.

[Drummond]

A reminder, by the way, of your previous comment addressed to me. An excerpt from the post in question:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51029-A-Few-Thoughts&p=758286#post758286


There are reasons indeed for many going towards Trump, whom as you've often insisted, speaks even more conservatively now than Santorum, your ideological soul mate.

[indago]

Hardly at all. :laugh2: I don't see you playing his games.

Why should I?

[Drummond]

Why should I?

'Games' aren't involved, anyway.

I apply logic to my arguments. I apply examinations of practicalities where it's pertinent to do so. None of that is 'playing games'.

The truth of this matter is that I hold one viewpoint, and that viewpoint is firmly grounded in practicability. I, in fact (and as I've argued many times before) consider one of Conservatism's many strengths is that it addresses the real world, in a way that Leftieism could never do.

Leftieism demands blind adherence to belief-systems, whether OR NOT their application is practical or realistic. This is a trap that I, as a true Conservative, refuse to submit my thinking to.

Consider - GW Bush's reaction to 9/11. Before that day, he intended a form of Presidency which was inward-looking, where domestic issues would be his firm priority. Then, 9/11 happened, proving to him that to continue along his wished-for path just 'wasn't on'.

He adapted, 'turning on a dime', as it were. He adapted MAGNIFICENTLY, re-ordering his priorities instantly. He did what had to be done, unflinchingly, I'd suggest even proudly.

This is the mark of a true, meritorious, Conservative leader, and thinker ! You adapt to reality, you apply practical solutions, as you absolutely must, and when you must !!

To think in any other way detracts from the value of Conservatism .. indeed, it departs from it altogether, if that's taken to sufficient extremes.

Margaret Thatcher, another noted and truly stellar Conservative Leader, understood all of this well. She was nothing if not practical. So, too, are other truly great Conservative thinkers and leaders !

[indago]

'Games' aren't involved, anyway.

You two should get a room...

http://media.independent.com/img/photos/2007/06/21/motel6logo.jpg

They'll leave the light on for ya...

[indago]

And besides, you two are arguing the ancient method of building a nation's defenses to protect from invasions, wars, and terrorism. I have already made my argument concerning this, strengthening the UN peacekeeping forces, which was pooh poohed by Kathianne. I needn't enter your discussions on the matter.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Drummond my friend. I warned you what having so many exchanges with fj would eventually lead to.
People only remember bits and pieces of your quotes and may form a very negative opinion from that.
If one gets down into the muck with fj--the shat will splash over onto them! Tis' why I put him on ignore
Hell ban me too, but fj does nothing but stir division in the conservatives here IMHO.
He sneaks in his crap, change quotes, lies and has often been a clever little troll IMHO .
Anybody here that thinks he is conservative I feel sorry as hell for myself!
He works undercover to espouse his liberal appeasement, PC type mentality and its sickening as hell .

Drummond, pm on the way my friend. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

drummond has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.

clear please... -tyr

[gabosaurus]

Consider - GW Bush's reaction to 9/11. Before that day, he intended a form of Presidency which was inward-looking, where domestic issues would be his firm priority. Then, 9/11 happened, proving to him that to continue along his wished-for path just 'wasn't on'.

He adapted, 'turning on a dime', as it were. He adapted MAGNIFICENTLY, re-ordering his priorities instantly. He did what had to be done, unflinchingly, I'd suggest even proudly.

This is the mark of a true, meritorious, Conservative leader, and thinker ! You adapt to reality, you apply practical solutions, as you absolutely must, and when you must !!

You are absolutely incorrect. Bush began planning the invasion of Iraq on his first official day in office. He was planning his legacy as "the war president." In part because he was basically clueless on domestic issues.
Bush was so obsessed with the invasion of Iraq that he missed the clues that might have foiled the 9-11 attacks. Or perhaps he disregarded them intentionally. Either way, it was only the beginning of his Administration of Gross Stupidity.

[NightTrain]

You are absolutely incorrect. Bush began planning the invasion of Iraq on his first official day in office. He was planning his legacy as "the war president." In part because he was basically clueless on domestic issues.
Bush was so obsessed with the invasion of Iraq that he missed the clues that might have foiled the 9-11 attacks. Or perhaps he disregarded them intentionally. Either way, it was only the beginning of his Administration of Gross Stupidity.


Full of shit as usual.

I assume you have legitimate sources for your mad barking?

[gabosaurus]

Full of shit as usual.

I assume you have legitimate sources for your mad barking?

It wasn't reported on Fox News or the NY Post, so I doubt that you read about it. :rolleyes:

[NightTrain]

It wasn't reported on Fox News or the NY Post, so I doubt that you read about it. :rolleyes:


Excellent!

I'm always up to learn something new. Enlighten me.

Remember the "legitimate" part. Your shabby 'sources' didn't work out so well for you last time, and the 'student' you had write your response wasn't very bright, either.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Repeat: After having multiple back and forth on defense, one of the ENUMERATED purviews of the federal government, I'm done with you. At least until you stop saying that you are 'conservative' and truthful. If anyone is owed an apology it is me, you have been consistently dishonest.

I vehemently disagree with your comment about Drummond being dishonest my friend.
He is 100% honest in presenting his political views , in fact, is a mirror image of me in that respect.
I'VE KNOWN HIM A LONG TIME AND FOUND THAT TO BE THE CASE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOU GUYS DISAGREEING BUT FIND IT AN ERROR TO JUDGE HIM TO BE A DISHONEST GUY.

I'LL STACK MY LIFE ON HIS HONESTY IN POSTING HIS POLITICAL VIEWS AS I'VE SEEN THEM 100% CONSISTENT
FOR WELL OVER 5 YEARS.

I posted in caps but I am not insecure at all.
Trust me on this, I've been thru hell many never survive, no insecurity rests within me.

Disagree , debate , whatever but try not to misjudge each other-
both of you guys are tops with me and I am very, very , very selective in that area ..-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Excellent!

I'm always up to learn something new. Enlighten me.

Remember the "legitimate" part. Your shabby 'sources' didn't work out so well for you last time, and the 'student' you had write your response wasn't very bright, either.

Like I said before, I'm not even going to bother to source things that you won't bother to read anything.
And my student is now attending an Ivy League school. As opposed to sitting out on the tundra letting the midnight sun soften his brain.

[NightTrain]

Like I said before, I'm not even going to bother to source things that you won't bother to read anything.

Why would you think I wouldn't read them? I read all your sources when thrashing your inane and stupid statements. Your inability to properly support your claims makes it that much funnier.

Lay it on me.


And my student is now attending an Ivy League school. As opposed to sitting out on the tundra letting the midnight sun soften his brain.

lol, Bravo!

You can't even insult anyone properly anymore. Did you hear that zinger in the freshman hall?

And your 'student' that you had write your rebuttal for some mysterious reason doesn't have the logical capacity to pass a high school debate class, let alone attend an Ivy League institution.

[Kathianne]

I vehemently disagree with your comment about Drummond being dishonest my friend.
He is 100% honest in presenting his political views , in fact, is a mirror image of me in that respect.
I'VE KNOWN HIM A LONG TIME AND FOUND THAT TO BE THE CASE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOU GUYS DISAGREEING BUT FIND IT AN ERROR TO JUDGE HIM TO BE A DISHONEST GUY.

I'LL STACK MY LIFE ON HIS HONESTY IN POSTING HIS POLITICAL VIEWS AS I'VE SEEN THEM 100% CONSISTENT
FOR WELL OVER 5 YEARS.

I posted in caps but I am not insecure at all.
Trust me on this, I've been thru hell many never survive, no insecurity rests within me.

Disagree , debate , whatever but try not to misjudge each other-
both of you guys are tops with me and I am very, very , very selective in that area ..-Tyr


Tyr-I believed such before. However, my having been in disagreement with his 'choices' for whom I should vote for-if I am to be 'conservative' has seem to have brought out his true colors.

Besides being 'liberal'; in some sort of collusion with other 'liberals' that are against segregation, big government, and electing a tyrant has led him to misrepresent what I've said. Furthermore I'm to spend my time 'proving it' to his satisfaction, which anyone who's read his posts knows would be a never ending search.

What would you say if I consistently ignored a point you made in response to something. In this case it's the insistence by Drummond that I'm for 'small government' regarding our national defense. Nothing I've ever said is indicative of such. The opposite in fact. I started from the premise that the Fed should be contained to its enumerated powers. I've repeated many, many times to his false charge. Once one should chalk it up to skimming through a response; twice may be just wishful thinking of my position, hoping that he could prove I've gone crazy liberal; many more times is just dishonest.

[NightTrain]

And with that, the mental midget Gabby fled the thread.

Chimps often flee after flinging poo at the wall, as well... and that's no coincidence.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pgUwpb3I98M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

NT, did you really think you were going to get answers, links or a debate? Here, you may have a better chance with this, or at least get the same answers:

http://i.imgur.com/LIl3dbg.jpg

[fj1200]

... lies ...

Link please. Oh, and you'll note that your pal was up to his usual tricks with a completely different poster. :)

[fj1200]

Like I said before, I'm not even going to bother to source things that you won't bother to read anything.
And my student is now attending an Ivy League school. As opposed to sitting out on the tundra letting the midnight sun soften his brain.

Rubbish. When was the last time NT didn't "read anything"?

[NightTrain]

NT, did you really think you were going to get answers, links or a debate? Here, you may have a better chance with this, or at least get the same answers:

http://i.imgur.com/LIl3dbg.jpg

I know... I know.

I knew she wouldn't provide anything to back herself up, because there IS nothing to back that lunacy up with.

When I see baldfaced lies like that, I can't help myself even though it's akin to pissing upwind. It might be my version of OCD.

[Drummond]

Drummond my friend. I warned you what having so many exchanges with fj would eventually lead to.
People only remember bits and pieces of your quotes and may form a very negative opinion from that.
If one gets down into the muck with fj--the shat will splash over onto them! Tis' why I put him on ignore
Hell ban me too, but fj does nothing but stir division in the conservatives here IMHO.
He sneaks in his crap, change quotes, lies and has often been a clever little troll IMHO .
Anybody here that thinks he is conservative I feel sorry as hell for myself!
He works undercover to espouse his liberal appeasement, PC type mentality and its sickening as hell .

Drummond, pm on the way my friend. --Tyr

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Thanks for this, Tyr !! :beer:

You are, of course, absolutely correct. FJ must be absolutely delighted with Kathianne's recent posting here. Indeed, could he have asked for any better ?

I suspect he'll also be equally (if not more so, still) delighted with what is to follow, on this thread. Unfortunately, unless I start to get some actual justice, that cannot be helped.

- But thanks. You are one great friend to have .. and a highly honourable one. You, at least, do our shared cause proud !:beer:

[Drummond]

I vehemently disagree with your comment about Drummond being dishonest my friend.
He is 100% honest in presenting his political views , in fact, is a mirror image of me in that respect.
I'VE KNOWN HIM A LONG TIME AND FOUND THAT TO BE THE CASE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOU GUYS DISAGREEING BUT FIND IT AN ERROR TO JUDGE HIM TO BE A DISHONEST GUY.

I'LL STACK MY LIFE ON HIS HONESTY IN POSTING HIS POLITICAL VIEWS AS I'VE SEEN THEM 100% CONSISTENT
FOR WELL OVER 5 YEARS.

I posted in caps but I am not insecure at all.
Trust me on this, I've been thru hell many never survive, no insecurity rests within me.

Disagree , debate , whatever but try not to misjudge each other-
both of you guys are tops with me and I am very, very , very selective in that area ..-Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

More thanks are due for this, Tyr. I'm sure any words I'd add to do so would be inadequate to the task.

Kathianne and folks .. Tyr has known me for longer than any of you. He well knows what my views truly are, he knows I'm consistently, strongly, Conservative ... and that I've not only proved this here, but elsewhere. Indeed, Tyr first encountered me on another Conservative forum, one roughly equivalent to this, and he well knows what my posting history was THERE, as well.

So, in fact, I don't consider I've anything to prove .. and especially since Kathianne has proven, herself, that she knows I'm no form of 'liberal'.

I'm appalled at the fact that, despite knowing the truth, she defies it with her disgusting accusation.

I will add one more post here, one aimed more specifically at Kathianne. She should now be reconsidering her position.

I require that she does.

[indago]

I will add one more post here, one aimed more specifically at Kathianne. She should now be reconsidering her position.

I require that she does.

Throwing Down The Gauntlet



.

[Drummond]

-- Kathianne.

I don't have a great deal to say to you. You've accused me of being a liberal. You, through your posts, have already proven that you know otherwise. But, you've made that accusation regardless.

It must be blindingly obvious that this is unacceptable !!

You 'think' me to be liberal, YET, you also posted that Santorum was my 'soulmate' .. ?

You cannot reconcile these statements. We both know you cannot. But still, you don't care. Still, you take the line that you have.

I considered taking quotes from other posts in this thread to illustrate how I've made my position crystal clear, i.e that I'm only as Big Government as circumstances ABSOLUTELY NECESSITATE, and how you tried, increasingly, to paint me differently. For what it's worth, my target posts for the task of 'defending myself' would've involved material from:

Post #75. Post #76. Post #89. Post #90. Post#91. Post #94. Post #95 and Post #96.

But, you know what ? I really can't be bothered to go into such detail, or length, to defend a position already PROVEN to show that even you, Kathianne, well know I am a Conservative !!!

MY case is already made. I require, Kathianne, that you publicly admit that you're wrong. Moreover, you will issue me with a publicly apology for wrongly branding me a 'liberal'.

You will supply that apology within the next 24 hours.

That is all.

[Drummond]

[Pl'se ignore. Test post to be sure of how this board recorded timezone differences.]

[Noir]

Kathianne, that you publicly admit that you're wrong. Moreover, you will issue me with a publicly apology for wrongly branding me a 'liberal'. You will supply that apology within the next 24 hours. That is all.

I think you may be taking the internet too seriously xD

[NightTrain]

Well, things certainly got heated here...

While I am reluctant to poke my nose into a heated argument (good way to get it punched), I just wanted to say that no one thinks you're a liberal, Drummond. That would be ridiculous. Your conservative credentials remain unblemished.

Kathi is certainly not liberal either, by any stretch of the imagination.

It looks to me like the written word was mistaken more than once for a dour tone rather than the spirit in which it was intended... and I myself know about taking a comment out of context in the runup to the unannounced Fireworks Display... and as we all know, once the tempers are up, things are said that aren't meant.

Minor differences in conservative ideas abound, and that's healthy. If there were no differences in political opinion within our conservative ideology there would be something alarmingly wrong.



I think everyone, myself included, are taking this next election very seriously - and with good reason. The entire world is teetering on the edge of the abyss and we all see it. We're all frustrated that we're in the position that we're in and we all know that if a worthy President isn't put into office in 2016 that some very bad things are going to happen on the international level and every country will feel the repercussions.

As a country we've failed ourselves and the world for the last 7 years and we have to get it right this time.

That said, we have to remember that we're on the same team and I think we all do a pretty damn good job, collectively, at scrutinizing the strengths and flaws of all the candidates. I'm confident that with our group here that we're going to have a general consensus after the next couple of debates as to whom is our best nominee.

And if we can't do that, then we're all going to pick the guy that makes Gabby bark the loudest. :happy0203:

[Kathianne]

NT, that thanks is for being a voice of reason. Perhaps all should curtail themselves to their actual points and leave other issues aside.

I've always liked Drummond, thought him reasonable, until I objected to certain viewpoints I feel are important. I'll leave him with his conservative label, I hope he'll reciprocate.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Throwing Down The Gauntlet



.
And whats that to you?????

[tailfins]

Well, for the record, I'm happy with both FJ and Drummond. Neither has done anything negative to me.

[LongTermGuy]

Well, things certainly got heated here...

While I am reluctant to poke my nose into a heated argument (good way to get it punched), I just wanted to say that no one thinks you're a liberal, Drummond. That would be ridiculous. Your conservative credentials remain unblemished.

Kathi is certainly not liberal either, by any stretch of the imagination.

It looks to me like the written word was mistaken more than once for a dour tone rather than the spirit in which it was intended... and I myself know about taking a comment out of context in the runup to the unannounced Fireworks Display... and as we all know, once the tempers are up, things are said that aren't meant.

Minor differences in conservative ideas abound, and that's healthy. If there were no differences in political opinion within our conservative ideology there would be something alarmingly wrong.



I think everyone, myself included, are taking this next election very seriously - and with good reason. The entire world is teetering on the edge of the abyss and we all see it. We're all frustrated that we're in the position that we're in and we all know that if a worthy President isn't put into office in 2016 that some very bad things are going to happen on the international level and every country will feel the repercussions.

As a country we've failed ourselves and the world for the last 7 years and we have to get it right this time.

That said, we have to remember that we're on the same team and I think we all do a pretty damn good job, collectively, at scrutinizing the strengths and flaws of all the candidates. I'm confident that with our group here that we're going to have a general consensus after the next couple of debates as to whom is our best nominee.

And if we can't do that, then we're all going to pick the guy that makes Gabby bark the loudest. :happy0203:

Tell it like it is NIGHT TRAIN!:cool:


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FKy6sJNG_UE/VQHvKhE2jYI/AAAAAAABlAI/sREaXhgYP7w/s1600/1-night-train-carol-and-mike-werner.jpg


Hmmmm..who would make Gabby Bark the Loudest?:laugh:

http://www.eurthisnthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/donald-trump-pointing-finger.jpg

"I see you Gabby..... I know what you did last summer"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

NT, that thanks is for being a voice of reason. Perhaps all should curtail themselves to their actual points and leave other issues aside.

I've always liked Drummond, thought him reasonable, until I objected to certain viewpoints I feel are important. I'll leave him with his conservative label, I hope he'll reciprocate.

I think thats reasonable. To me this was a classic example of how comments and actions on message boards get misconstrued, misinterpreted and end up being blown outrageously out of hand.....
Both members I know to be very intelligent, strongly conservative and quite capable in debate.

Whats happening is this election is proving to not only be of paramount importance and that is being realized by more and more people( tens of millions now).. And that leads to greatly inflamed passions setting on go!!!

We had best reunite and steer this toward the vermin that seek to destroy us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Tyr

[Kathianne]

I think thats reasonable. To me this was a classic example of how comments and actions on message boards get misconstrued, misinterpreted and end up being blown outrageously out of hand.....
Both members I know to be very intelligent, strongly conservative and quite capable in debate.

Whats happening is this election is proving to not only be of paramount importance and that is being realized by more and more people( tens of millions now).. And that leads to greatly inflamed passions setting on go!!!

We had best reunite and steer this toward the vermin that seek to destroy us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Tyr

Good points Tyr. Have to say I'm in doubt about the reunite part, the purpose of the thread was why I see a coming split among conservatives. Sadly, nothing that has followed has led to a change of mind.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Good points Tyr. Have to say I'm in doubt about the reunite part, the purpose of the thread was why I see a coming split among conservatives. Sadly, nothing that has followed has led to a change of mind.
If cooler heads prevail we have a chance otherwise the corrupt bastards win and this nation falls.
That fall is quite likely to cause the death of millions here!
Dem party and its agenda is pure treason!!!!! The obama is nothing but a lying traitor.
We now face the most dire threat since WW2.
Either we acknowledge that and unite or we will be destroyed.. As we have massive numbers of traitors within this nation in powerful government positions.. The agenda is to destroy this nation's power--the dem party is 100% in on it.
All this can very easily lead to a civil war IMHO. If that occurs , millions will die.
Gaffer and I discussed this often over three years ago.. he saw it coming too. -Tyr

[Black Diamond]

If cooler heads prevail we have a chance otherwise the corrupt bastards win and this nation falls.
That fall is quite likely to cause the death of millions here!
Dem party and its agenda is pure treason!!!!! The obama is nothing but a lying traitor.
We now face the most dire threat since WW2.
Either we acknowledge that and unite or we will be destroyed.. As we have massive numbers of traitors within this nation in powerful government positions.. The agenda is to destroy this nation's power--the dem party is 100% in on it.
All this can very easily lead to a civil war IMHO. If that occurs , millions will die.
Gaffer and I discussed this often over three years ago.. he saw it coming too. -Tyr
How do you envision the bolded unfolding?

[Abbey Marie]

Excellent thread, NT!!

[indago]

Paraphrasing a famous quote

Politicians fuck things up so badly, the electorate will beg for a tyrant to set things aright

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How do you envision the bolded unfolding?

Pretty much as it usually does- courageous people say -ENOUGH- and choose to fight.
However , in this rare case, could be that the Federal government forces it on purpose.
I see that possibility as being the greater one--so did Gaffer.
ALL this is not mere happenstance, its an agenda the bama and his handlers are deliberately implementing.
No way to cite exactly but thats the broad view of it..--Tyr

[SassyLady]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NightTrain again

[Drummond]

Well, for the record, I'm happy with both FJ and Drummond. Neither has done anything negative to me.

I can agree with 50% of that comment.

[indago]

And whats that to you?????

:popcorn:

[Drummond]

NT, that thanks is for being a voice of reason. Perhaps all should curtail themselves to their actual points and leave other issues aside.

I've always liked Drummond, thought him reasonable, until I objected to certain viewpoints I feel are important. I'll leave him with his conservative label, I hope he'll reciprocate.

Answering your post, then ....

Kathianne, you've definitely made some useful, even commendable, progress here. I thank you for it. At least, now, you've reversed the accusation that I'm a 'European liberal'. Not before time, to be sure, but at least you've done it.

I accept that you are a Conservative. In fact, didn't I post along the lines of saying that I accept that you believe yourself to be one ? Also .. did I ever use a form of words where I accused you of being a liberal ??

I'm sure I didn't. However, purely for the sake of scrupulous fairness, I shall check to be absolutely sure that no wording was posted which amounted to making that actual accusation (I'll do it tomorrow .. 4:40 AM as I type, and I want my sleep, thanks very much !!).

But, here's the thing --

Your wording, 'I'll leave him with his conservative label', falls short of an actual apology. Check, Kathianne .. I did ask you, specifically, for an apology.

And I've not received one.

So, then. The clock is ticking. I'll go to bed very shortly. Some little while after I wake up tomorrow, I'll check to see if you've done the decent thing and supplied that apology.

Consider this: you knew your accusation of my being a 'liberal' was false. You've absolutely no way whatever of reconciling that accusation with the claim you also made, that of my being Santorum's 'soulmate' .. and especially considering how very Conservative in some areas he truly is, even when you compare him with other Republicans !!

So, then, you tell me. What else but a real apology could ever suffice ???

I expect to receive one. The clock is ticking. Don't ruin the progress you've already made, Kathianne, by refusing to supply it.

[Drummond]

I think you may be taking the internet too seriously xD

And I think you may be missing the point, in a major way, Noir.

You see, a matter of honour and decency is involved. I have a right not to be on the receiving-end of false accusations, especially when they are OBVIOUSLY false.

This is something that a Conservative thinker such as myself would care about, and take extremely seriously. However .. you suffer from the handicap of being a Leftie. I therefore understand your lack of comprehension when it comes to these higher matters.

I sympathise with your plight, Noir, and I hope that in time you can learn what's involved here.

[Black Diamond]

And I think you may be missing the point, in a major way, Noir.

You see, a matter of honour and decency is involved. I have a right not to be on the receiving-end of false accusations, especially when they are OBVIOUSLY false.

This is something that a Conservative thinker such as myself would care about, and take extremely seriously. However .. you suffer from the handicap of being a Leftie. I therefore understand your lack of comprehension when it comes to these higher matters.

I sympathise with your plight, Noir, and I hope that in time you can learn what's involved here.

I am just curious but what makes you believe the bolded?

[sundaydriver]

You see, a matter of honour and decency is involved. I have a right not to be on the receiving-end of false accusations, especially when they are OBVIOUSLY false.

What a whiner you are! Time and time again you throw out that leftie label at those that don't agree with you on any subject and then someone points out you're unconservative stand on something and you throw a hissy fit. Shheeez. :eek: You have 10 minutes to reply or it's the end of the world as you know it! :rolleyes:

[indago]

What a whiner you are! Time and time again you throw out that leftie label at those that don't agree with you on any subject and then someone points out you're unconservative stand on something and you throw a hissy fit. Shheeez. :eek: You have 10 minutes to reply or it's the end of the world as you know it! :rolleyes:

The "10 minutes" are up!

[jimnyc]

I gotta agree with NT here, and Noir, and NO ONE gets as angry on the internet as I do. But thanks to getting angry, and the years I've been on political boards, I have learned a lot.

2 strong folks with strong opinions and perhaps differences on what they see for the future, and perhaps differences in what they see out of candidates thus far. That's all normal, believe it or not. Ain't none of it worthy of the fighting though, or leaving the board, or demands. We're all friends and adults here. In a "perfect" world, such friends go private, work things out, and then come back out fighting. :)

But that's ok, the best of friends survive fights, and understand the other persons position. Shit happens. You guys should be more worried about friendship and working things out, than you should be worried about the others positions and being called the L word.

Drummond - shoot me a PM if you have any outstanding issues. I'll step in and help iron this out. Kath, you obviously know the same. It DOESN'T matter who was wrong or right, who thinks the other is wrong or right, let's just fix this and move on. It sucks seeing good folks fighting (unless it's me). :)

[Jeff]

So Kat and Drummond are both Liberals ( hell I always had me suspicions about them :laugh: ) and gabby is as dumb as a rock, OK I am all caught up, thanks. :thumb:

[Perianne]

Kathianne, Drummond, I am sorry if anything I said on this thread angered you or hurt your feelings. I like both of you and would hate to see either of you go. You both post so much and so often that this forum would be a lesser place without you.

My little poodle died yesterday morning. I got on here to get my mind off things and I didn't want to see my friends misbehaving and fighting. Maybe I am taking it too sensitively because of the loss of my precious doggie.

Please, please, please apologize to each other regardless of who you think started it. That's what friends do.

[Drummond]

I am just curious but what makes you believe the bolded?

I am just curious, but what makes you believe I shouldn't ?

[Drummond]

What a whiner you are!

Well, if you've got it, flaunt it, as they say !! :rolleyes:


Time and time again you throw out that leftie label at those that don't agree with you on any subject and then someone points out you're unconservative stand on something and you throw a hissy fit. Shheeez. :eek: You have 10 minutes to reply or it's the end of the world as you know it! :rolleyes:

Well, I sincerely hope you're wrong with that time estimate, Sundaydriver. You may well need longer than that to comprehend what I'm typing ....

But your 'analysis' is off to a very considerable degree.

You may not understand this, but Conservatives have actual standards. Therefore, if I detect Leftie thinking, and I feel moved to comment on it, comment I will !!

Am I banned from doing so ? Would you care to quote to me the decree which demands that ?

I am here, Sundaydriver, to debate. To put ideas and beliefs forward, and see what reactions come from them. To do the decent and honourable thing of not only disseminating my views, but also to publicly test them. This is, I suggest, what boards like this should be about.

Instead, I get accusations about my beliefs, and what I supposedly 'am', hurled back at me. False ones. I can have no reason to just sit back and take it all, and sure enough, I haven't.

But, you don't like that, do you ? I wonder why ?

[Drummond]

The "10 minutes" are up!

Curses .. and I was having such fun, too.

Poor Sundaydriver ...

[Drummond]

So Kat and Drummond are both Liberals ( hell I always had me suspicions about them :laugh: ) and gabby is as dumb as a rock, OK I am all caught up, thanks. :thumb:

... OI !!!!

Right, Sunbeam ... you're going on The List .. !!!:rolleyes:

[Drummond]

I gotta agree with NT here, and Noir, and NO ONE gets as angry on the internet as I do. But thanks to getting angry, and the years I've been on political boards, I have learned a lot.

2 strong folks with strong opinions and perhaps differences on what they see for the future, and perhaps differences in what they see out of candidates thus far. That's all normal, believe it or not. Ain't none of it worthy of the fighting though, or leaving the board, or demands. We're all friends and adults here. In a "perfect" world, such friends go private, work things out, and then come back out fighting. :)

But that's ok, the best of friends survive fights, and understand the other persons position. Shit happens. You guys should be more worried about friendship and working things out, than you should be worried about the others positions and being called the L word.

Drummond - shoot me a PM if you have any outstanding issues. I'll step in and help iron this out. Kath, you obviously know the same. It DOESN'T matter who was wrong or right, who thinks the other is wrong or right, let's just fix this and move on. It sucks seeing good folks fighting (unless it's me). :)

Thanks for this post. I will happily shoot you that PM, although I don't expect anything to come of it. The problem is not on my side, and the solution to it is very clear. I'm just waiting for it to be acted upon.

[Kathianne]

As noted in this article, the 'flash' candidates have been evident in GOP elections for many cycles. Trump is different, whether because of himself or the times is unknown. He may still come undone, but the schisms are now out there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/politics/why-donald-trump-wont-fold-polls-and-people-speak.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0


Why Donald Trump Won’t Fold: Polls and People SpeakBy MICHAEL BARBARO (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_barbaro/index.html), NATE COHN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/nate_cohn/index.html) and JEREMY W. PETERS (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/jeremy_w_peters/index.html)<time class="dateline" datetime="2015-08-22" style="font-size: 0.6875rem; line-height: 0.75rem; font-family: nyt-cheltenham-sh, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-left: 12px;">AUG. 22, 2015

</time>...

[Jeff]

Kathianne, Drummond, I am sorry if anything I said on this thread angered you or hurt your feelings. I like both of you and would hate to see either of you go. You both post so much and so often that this forum would be a lesser place without you.

My little poodle died yesterday morning. I got on here to get my mind off things and I didn't want to see my friends misbehaving and fighting. Maybe I am taking it too sensitively because of the loss of my precious doggie.

Please, please, please apologize to each other regardless of who you think started it. That's what friends do.

So sorry to hear about your little dog Perianne, I know they become family.

As for Kat and Drummond, heck they are both great folks and very smart, they will put this behind them even if it takes a few days to do so. They are both way to smart to stay angry. And lets not forget they are now Liberals :laugh: so you know birds of a feather and all that. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, Drummond, I am sorry if anything I said on this thread angered you or hurt your feelings. I like both of you and would hate to see either of you go. You both post so much and so often that this forum would be a lesser place without you.

My little poodle died yesterday morning. I got on here to get my mind off things and I didn't want to see my friends misbehaving and fighting. Maybe I am taking it too sensitively because of the loss of my precious doggie.

Please, please, please apologize to each other regardless of who you think started it. That's what friends do.

Perianne, so sorry about your dog, I know the hurt. I hope she's playing with Jim's dog. ;)

[Kathianne]

and yet another. This one isn't as telling in a purposeful way. Populism can be dangerous, it's driven by feelings and personalities. Part of the right and even independents are susceptible to this, others aren't. The same words and ideas by another will not be acceptable to those who are for Trump:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/23/who_in_gop_field_will_seize_trumps_populist_mantle _127853.html


Who in GOP Field Will Seize Trump's Populist Mantle?By Salena Zito (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/salena_zito/) - August 23, 2015

...

[Kathianne]

and yet another. Written by two of Reagan aids, they represent the non-populist side. I'm not saying they have a 'split of party' in mind, but it's reflected by their arguments:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/23/trump_is_no_reagan_127851.html


Trump Is No ReaganBy Stu Spencer and Ken Khachigian (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/stu_spencer_and_ken_khachigian/) - August 23, 2015

Donald Trump’s attempts to burnish his conservative credentials by comparing himself to Ronald Reagan are wildly unconvincing. In his recent “Meet the Press” interview, Trump argued that his metamorphosis from left to right was akin to Reagan’s. He added that the late president was “somebody that I actually knew and liked. And he liked me. And I worked with him and helped him.”


Combined, we had the privilege of working very closely with Ronald Reagan over a five-decade period, and we must have missed the occasions when The Donald “worked with” the president, and overlooked The Gipper’s expressions of affection for him.

But quite apart from whether those assertions of affinity are true, we take even greater exception with Trump claiming the Reagan mantle to advance his political fortunes. Here are our reasons why:


--In his 1966 campaign for governor of California, Reagan popularized the so-called Republican 11thCommandment, stating, “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” Calling his GOP opponents (or anyone for that matter) “losers,” “morons,” “dummies” or “idiots” would have been unthinkable for Reagan. Those words didn’t exist in his vocabulary—even for Democrats who called him names. He once wrote a note to us saying we had done “d--- good,” not being able to bring himself to spell out the word “damn.” Meanness was not in Reagan’s soul.


--Yes, Ronald Reagan migrated from being a liberal Democrat to the gold standard for conservative Republicans. But Reagan’s views evolved over four decades’ worth of life experience, a philosophical journey that took place gradually. His conservative credentials didn’t emanate overnight to match the political season. His was a slow and thoughtful transformation from the 1930s to the 1960s. Trump’s appears to be a midnight conversion just in time for the Iowa caucuses.


--Reagan vetted his ideas for governing with the likes of William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower. He got his information by studying and reading and listening to a wide spectrum of experts. By all accounts, Trump appears to have no policy or philosophical patrons, characterized by his recent statement that his schooling on military affairs comes from “watching television shows.”


--Above all else, Ronald Wilson Reagan was genial and mannerly. He treated others with respect and courtesy. He was a gentleman whose personal decency was exceptional. On the occasions where he disagreed with our opinions or points of view, he did so without sharp words or rebuke, often apologetically. Yes, his political rhetoric could be tough and partisan, but it was never vulgar or personal. Donald Trump would benefit from the light-hearted humor that Reagan used to advantage in his communication.


--In the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan also said it was time to “make America great again.” But he did so while reflecting on what a wonderful country we live in, and that even amid the failure of our institutions, our nation’s promise of hope and opportunity stood out. It would have been unimaginable for Reagan to say, “Our country is going to hell,” as Trump regularly claims. Optimism permeated Reagan’s thinking, and we don’t see any evidence of Trump using the uplifting and aspirational language that was so dominant in Reagan’s communications.


--Ronald Reagan was respectful of all people, but even more so towards women, with whom he was warm and courtly. As a person who believed a soft answer turneth away wrath, his approach to Megyn Kelly on debate night would have been delivered with a wink and a smile. He might have even said, “There you go again.” If Mr. Trump, as he insists on being called, wants to be like Mr. Reagan, he needs to replace churlishness with charm.


--Despite the acclaim he achieved in his motion picture, television and political careers, Reagan was never boastful. On election night 1980, as he prepared his victory remarks, there was no trace of gloating or conquest. And on the eve of his inauguration, it was the stirring emotion and spirit of the moment that moved him, not the notion that he would soon be the most powerful man in the world. It was America that was great, not him – a studied contrast with Mr. Trump’s overwhelming self-absorption.


We find no similarities other than both Reagan and Trump came out of the entertainment industry. We knew Ronald Reagan. We served alongside President Reagan. Ronald Reagan was our friend. And, Mr. Trump, you’re no Ronald Reagan.

[Drummond]

So sorry to hear about your little dog Perianne, I know they become family.

As for Kat and Drummond, heck they are both great folks and very smart, they will put this behind them even if it takes a few days to do so. They are both way to smart to stay angry. And lets not forget they are now Liberals :laugh: so you know birds of a feather and all that. :laugh::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

But seriously, Jeff, I for one certainly hope this can reach a satisfactory, even an amicable, solution.

That said, there's a baseline from which all this can follow. And that baseline involves my getting the public apology I require.

All else can follow from that. But this starting-point is non-negotiable. And there aren't 'a few days' available for this. A countdown is underway, and indeed, it doesn't have too much longer to run. I want that 'baseline' requirement supplied no later than by its expiry point.

[Drummond]

I gotta agree with NT here, and Noir, and NO ONE gets as angry on the internet as I do. But thanks to getting angry, and the years I've been on political boards, I have learned a lot.

2 strong folks with strong opinions and perhaps differences on what they see for the future, and perhaps differences in what they see out of candidates thus far. That's all normal, believe it or not. Ain't none of it worthy of the fighting though, or leaving the board, or demands. We're all friends and adults here. In a "perfect" world, such friends go private, work things out, and then come back out fighting. :)

But that's ok, the best of friends survive fights, and understand the other persons position. Shit happens. You guys should be more worried about friendship and working things out, than you should be worried about the others positions and being called the L word.

Drummond - shoot me a PM if you have any outstanding issues. I'll step in and help iron this out. Kath, you obviously know the same. It DOESN'T matter who was wrong or right, who thinks the other is wrong or right, let's just fix this and move on. It sucks seeing good folks fighting (unless it's me). :)

PM sent.

[Kathianne]

There is a rise of nationalism in Europe and populism in US. Will they give the same results as the last time they resulted in the New Deal in US and fascism in much of Europe?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422919/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-national-socialism-immigration


by KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON August 23, 2015 4:00 AM @KEVINNR Trump’s rise is mirrored on the European right.

...

[Drummond]

Kathianne, Drummond, I am sorry if anything I said on this thread angered you or hurt your feelings. I like both of you and would hate to see either of you go. You both post so much and so often that this forum would be a lesser place without you.

My little poodle died yesterday morning. I got on here to get my mind off things and I didn't want to see my friends misbehaving and fighting. Maybe I am taking it too sensitively because of the loss of my precious doggie.

Please, please, please apologize to each other regardless of who you think started it. That's what friends do.

I'm extremely sorry for your loss, Perianne.

And you've not hurt my feelings, and I understand yours.

I actually am at a loss to even imagine what I should be apologising for (?). But as for the apology which I should be getting, well, that is clear enough. Nothing prevents my getting it, other than the decision that may be made to refuse to supply it.

This would be a pity.

Best wishes, Perianne, regardless.

[Kathianne]

Excellent thread, NT!!
It was an excellent post, but ahem, I started the thread. ;) That it went awry, I'm still trying to get it back on track. :laugh:

[Perianne]

5:15

[Abbey Marie]

It was an excellent post, but ahem, I started the thread. ;) That it went awry, I'm still trying to get it back on track. :laugh:


You're right, it was a slip. I meant to say "excellent post".

[Black Diamond]

Lemme help get it back on track, Kath. If Trump dropped out tomorrow and a third party candidate is inevitable, who would be that candidate? Palin?

[Russ]

So sorry to hear about your little dog Perianne, I know they become family.

As for Kat and Drummond, heck they are both great folks and very smart, they will put this behind them even if it takes a few days to do so. They are both way to smart to stay angry. And lets not forget they are now Liberals :laugh: so you know birds of a feather and all that. :laugh:

Perianne, I'm very sorry about your dog. I know how big a loss that can be.
In regard to Drummond and Kathianne, both of you are clearly Conservatives :salute: and any insinuation otherwise is just meant to irritate. Margaret Thatcher is, after all, the European equivalent of Ronald Reagan.

[Kathianne]

Perianne, I'm very sorry about your dog. I know how big a loss that can be.
In regard to Drummond and Kathianne, both of you are clearly Conservatives :salute: and any insinuation otherwise is just meant to irritate. Margaret Thatcher is, after all, the European equivalent of Ronald Reagan.

Except for the 'big government' thang. ;)

[Kathianne]

Lemme help get it back on track, Kath. If Trump dropped out tomorrow and a third party candidate is inevitable, who would be that candidate? Palin?

I don't know if there will be any 3rd party candidate this round, I think it may be that even with all the intense early interest, we see 'conservatives' sitting out the vote, just like last time.

I can't tell if those who don't want populism to take hold are the majority any longer. It doesn't seem to be, but then again, that doesn't fill the airwaves.

[Abbey Marie]

My attempt to get back on track is this:

I will just repeat what I've been saying for YEARS: I have my favorites and "not-so-much" candidates, but I will vote for any one of the Republican candidates over any one of the Dems.

And I sincerely hope that all Conservatives will do the same.

We all have so much more in common than we have differences. If anyone doubts that just read up on Bernie Sanders' ideas on government.

[Kathianne]

My attempt to get back on track is this:

I will just repeat what I've been saying for YEARS: I have my favorites and "not-so-much" candidates, but I will vote for any one of the Republican candidates over any one of the Dems.

And I sincerely hope that all Conservatives will do the same.

We all have so much more in common than we have differences. If anyone doubts that just read up on Bernie Sanders' ideas on government.

I'm not so sure. Some of those differences are on principles of governing, I don't see a way that breach is crossed.

The differences in philosophy are pretty difficult to merge, indeed they are growing, as I've come to realize Trump isn't a cause but a symptom of those very differences.

[Jeff]

Perianne, I'm very sorry about your dog. I know how big a loss that can be.
In regard to Drummond and Kathianne, both of you are clearly Conservatives :salute: and any insinuation otherwise is just meant to irritate. Margaret Thatcher is, after all, the European equivalent of Ronald Reagan.

It was a joke Russ, hence the :laugh:

Both Kat and Drummond know I like to cut up, and no I don't think either are even close to being liberals, hell I like them if they where truly liberals I wouldn't be able to say that.:laugh:

[Kathianne]

It was a joke Russ, hence the :laugh:

Both Kat and Drummond know I like to cut up, and no I don't think either are even close to being liberals, hell I like them if they where truly liberals I wouldn't be able to say that.:laugh:

There you go, being all PC. ;) Typical lefty!

[NightTrain]

You're right, it was a slip. I meant to say "excellent post".

I knew what she meant.




And if anyone is a liberal around here, it's Jeff. What with his granola bars in his saddlebags and long hair.

[Jeff]

I knew what she meant.




And if anyone is a liberal around here, it's Jeff. What with his granola bars in his saddlebags and long hair.

Other than the old hippie lifestyle AAA I don't think so :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

I knew what she meant.




And if anyone is a liberal around here, it's Jeff. What with his granola bars in his saddlebags and long hair.


I knew it all along! I think I saw him at the Bucket of Blood with a Bikers for Hillary sign.

:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

I knew it all along! I think I saw him at the Bucket of Blood with a Bikers for Hillary sign.

:laugh2:
I thought that was a Bernie sign!

[NightTrain]

I thought that was a Bernie sign!

Oh snap!

[Russ]

It was a joke Russ, hence the :laugh:

Both Kat and Drummond know I like to cut up, and no I don't think either are even close to being liberals, hell I like them if they where truly liberals I wouldn't be able to say that.:laugh:

Jeff - Yes, I knew you were joking. Sorry, guess my reply left that in doubt.

[Russ]

Actually, I think that everyone here is Conservative :salute: to various extents, with the exception of Gabby. And possibly FJ, but not sure.

[Drummond]

Perianne, I'm very sorry about your dog. I know how big a loss that can be.
In regard to Drummond and Kathianne, both of you are clearly Conservatives :salute: and any insinuation otherwise is just meant to irritate. Margaret Thatcher is, after all, the European equivalent of Ronald Reagan.

Margaret Thatcher was very definitely as you describe her. A truly stellar leader, and Conservative. And, as one, she was chiefly driven by realism, the understanding that you meet situations as they arise, and you do what you must to deal with them, even if the method employed isn't ideal by your personal standards. Practicality is all.

On your other point, no 'insinuation' is involved. A very clear wording, known by the perpetrator of it to be false, WAS and IS. I see only one solution to such a situation, and I am applying it. Again .. you do what you must .. same principle.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I knew it all along! I think I saw him at the Bucket of Blood with a Bikers for Hillary sign.

:laugh2:

I think I saw a pic on some off the wall internet news feed of Jeff at a --Hilary for gays and other perverts rally.:laugh:
Sho' did look like him and had a granola bar in his hand too.:laugh:-Tyr

[Drummond]

Actually, I think that everyone here is Conservative :salute: to various extents, with the exception of Gabby. And possibly FJ, but not sure.

Oh, very definitely FJ !!!

Consider this, as some of the proof that I could cite ...

FJ keeps, as his monicker statement, this wording: 'The One True Thatcherite'.

Now .. sounds good, doesn't it ? But, when you think about it, it doesn't ultimately make sense. If, as he says, he's the ONE TRUE Thatcherite, that means that nobody else is. That means in turn that he's automatically denigrating every other Thatcherite out there.

Now .. why on earth would a 'true Thatcherite' ever seek to do any such thing ?

That form of attack on her supporters, whoever and wherever they may be, is the very widest attack possible. It speaks of the person launching it being the very opposite of what they claim to be. Doesn't it ?

Who else but a Leftie would want to launch that ? Who else but a Leftie, when confronted with the reasoning I've just typed here, wouldn't immediately remove it, rather than deciding to keep the wording in place, despite what it clearly proves ??

If you can find fault with that reasoning, let me know .. & within the next couple of hours !! But, you won't, because I'm right.

[indago]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

But seriously, Jeff, I for one certainly hope this can reach a satisfactory, even an amicable, solution.

That said, there's a baseline from which all this can follow. And that baseline involves my getting the public apology I require.

All else can follow from that. But this starting-point is non-negotiable. And there aren't 'a few days' available for this. A countdown is underway, and indeed, it doesn't have too much longer to run. I want that 'baseline' requirement supplied no later than by its expiry point.

http://1389blog.com/pix/bored-smiley-tapping-fingers.gif

waiting...

Take a pill and go back to bed...

[Drummond]

http://1389blog.com/pix/bored-smiley-tapping-fingers.gif

waiting...

Take a pill and go back to bed...

Sorry, not enough time is available for that. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

[Elessar]

That's a cop out. Besides, others took just as firm a stance they just didn't do it so bombastically.

Name One, then!

[gabosaurus]

Is this argument STILL continuing?
Some of you take this board way too seriously. :lame2:

[Jeff]

I think I saw a pic on some off the wall internet news feed of Jeff at a --Hilary for gays and other perverts rally.:laugh:
Sho' did look like him and had a granola bar in his hand too.:laugh:-Tyr

DOH !!!

:guns2: OK, you got me :guns4:

Yup I was there visiting right after I left the Muslim compound. :laugh:


But Granola bars, people really eat that stuff ? :laugh::laugh:

[Russ]

Oh, very definitely FJ !!!

Consider this, as some of the proof that I could cite ...

FJ keeps, as his monicker statement, this wording: 'The One True Thatcherite'.

Now .. sounds good, doesn't it ? But, when you think about it, it doesn't ultimately make sense. If, as he says, he's the ONE TRUE Thatcherite, that means that nobody else is. That means in turn that he's automatically denigrating every other Thatcherite out there.

Now .. why on earth would a 'true Thatcherite' ever seek to do any such thing ?

That form of attack on her supporters, whoever and wherever they may be, is the very widest attack possible. It speaks of the person launching it being the very opposite of what they claim to be. Doesn't it ?

Who else but a Leftie would want to launch that ? Who else but a Leftie, when confronted with the reasoning I've just typed here, wouldn't immediately remove it, rather than deciding to keep the wording in place, despite what it clearly proves ??

If you can find fault with that reasoning, let me know .. & within the next couple of hours !! But, you won't, because I'm right.

Drummond - I, for one, ask that you stop the timer for now. And Indago, stay out of it.

[NightTrain]

DOH !!!

:guns2: OK, you got me :guns4:

Yup I was there visiting right after I left the Muslim compound. :laugh:


But Granola bars, people really eat that stuff ? :laugh::laugh:


I think it's hilarious that you're more offended at being accused of possessing a Granola Bar than being a Lib.


Honestly, though, I think I would be too. It's automatic Greenie status for being caught with that kind of contraband!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think it's hilarious that you're more offended at being accused of possessing a Granola Bar than being a Lib.


Honestly, though, I think I would be too. It's automatic Greenie status for being caught with that kind of contraband!

I went back to look at that pic, sure looks like Jeff to me. That granola bar was halfway eaten and he had another one showing in his vest pocket.:laugh:
I haven't a clue-- do granola bars taste good, Jeff??? ;)
And are they fattening? -Tyr

[fj1200]

and yet another. This one isn't as telling in a purposeful way. Populism can be dangerous, it's driven by feelings and personalities. Part of the right and even independents are susceptible to this, others aren't. The same words and ideas by another will not be acceptable to those who are for Trump:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/23/who_in_gop_field_will_seize_trumps_populist_mantle _127853.html


Populism's impact on political parties is complicated: Johnson won in a landslide, yet Goldwater's populist candidacy became a catalyst for the conservative movement.Goldwater's loss gave liberals the moment to overreach — and they did. Within three-and-a-half years, Johnson dropped his re-election bid, and Republican Richard Nixon won the presidency twice.
This column has warned about the populist movement on both sides of the political aisle since just after the 2012 presidential election; the Washington media never picked up on it until entertainer-businessman Donald Trump started to cash in on it.

I don't know if I accept his premise. IIRC Johnson didn't drop his bid because conservatism was on the upswing, he dropped his bid because he was overtaken from the left. His opposition bolstered by LBJ's war stance.

[fj1200]

Name One, then!


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

96%
The Texas senator has been outspoken in his belief that the border must be enforced and that illegal immigrants should not be given a pathway to citizenship. Last year, he was instrumental in killing a Republican bill pushing comprehensive immigration reform. Cruz cites his father’s experience in immigrating to the country to bolster his position. “In my opinion, if we allow those who are here illegally to be put on a path to citizenship, that is incredibly unfair to those who follow the rules,”he said in 2013 (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration).
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/16/a-guide-to-2016-republican-candidates-positions-on-illegal-immigration/

[fj1200]

Actually, I think that everyone here is Conservative :salute: to various extents, with the exception of Gabby. And possibly FJ, but not sure.

Well, I do have an astounding lack of big government positions. :)


Oh, very definitely FJ !!!

FJ keeps, as his monicker statement, this wording: 'The One True Thatcherite'.

I've always been very supportive of Mags. She's awesome.

[fj1200]

I think it's hilarious that you're more offended at being accused of possessing a Granola Bar than being a Lib.

Honestly, though, I think I would be too. It's automatic Greenie status for being caught with that kind of contraband!

Granola bars can be a tasty snack.







uh, oh. :scared:

[NightTrain]

Granola bars can be a tasty snack.


Ahhhh Ha!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7601&stc=1

[fj1200]

Ahhhh Ha!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7601&stc=1

HEY!!!


I don't have a dog.

[NightTrain]

HEY!!!


I don't have a dog.


Dogs frequently follow hippies around because they leave a trail of granola crumbs wherever they go. It's nature's way.

[fj1200]

I suspect he'll also be equally (if not more so, still) delighted with what is to follow, on this thread. Unfortunately, unless I start to get some actual justice, that cannot be helped.

Not delighted because you are still left with some misconceptions. And then there is...


You see, a matter of honour and decency is involved. I have a right not to be on the receiving-end of false accusations, especially when they are OBVIOUSLY false.

:dunno:

[fj1200]

Dogs frequently follow hippies around because they leave a trail of granola crumbs wherever they go. It's nature's way.

So that's what that smell is. I thought it was just nature. :)

[Abbey Marie]

Granola bars, tree-hugging, Bikers for Hillary. Where the heck am I, DU?! :eek:

[Black Diamond]

Granola bars, tree-hugging, Bikers for Hillary. Where the heck am I, DU?! :eek:

Women for Warren....

[Abbey Marie]

Dear Drummond,

I know you may never see this, but I feel compelled to post about this anyway. I am sorry that you chose to leave us.

I have no comment on the content of your debate with Kathianne. I know that you each feel very sure of your position, as that is the nature of the kind of people (us) who are generally attracted to a debate board in the first place. So, no one should be surprised nor unhappy with that.

I think where you lost some people, me for sure, is when you demanded an apology, and exacerbated that with a deadline by which it had to be made. Even if Kathianne had acceded, do you think a demanded apology is worth the electrons it is written on? Would you apologize on-demand?

That's all I had to say, and I say it with respect and I hope you can see, kindness.
Best of luck wherever you land on the web. And if that happens to be here again, all the better.
-Abbey

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Dear Drummond,

I know you may never see this, but I feel compelled to post about this anyway. I am sorry that you chose to leave us.

I have no comment on the content of your debate with Kathianne. I know that you each feel very sure of your position, as that is the nature of the kind of people (us) who are generally attracted to a debate board in the first place. So, no one should be surprised nor unhappy with that.

I think where you lost some people, me for sure, is when you demanded an apology, and exacerbated that with a deadline by which it had to be made. Even if Kathianne had acceded, do you think a demanded apology is worth the electrons it is written on? Would you apologize on-demand?

That's all I had to say, and I say it with respect and I hope you can see, kindness.
Best of luck wherever you land on the web. And if that happens to be here again, all the better.
-Abbey

GREAT POST, my friend!!

:beer: :clap: :beer:----Tyr

[Jeff]

I went back to look at that pic, sure looks like Jeff to me. That granola bar was halfway eaten and he had another one showing in his vest pocket.:laugh:
I haven't a clue-- do granola bars taste good, Jeff??? ;)
And are they fattening? -Tyr

Bro them things, well hell I don't think they even sell them in GA :laugh: I know they don't in my neck of the woods.

[Jeff]

Granola bars can be a tasty snack.







uh, oh. :scared:

OK so yes they are sold in GA, but of course that is down by the big city were all the Liberals live. :laugh:

[fj1200]

OK so yes they are sold in GA, but of course that is down by the big city were all the Liberals live. :laugh:

Do you know what big city liberals do when they get some money??? They head north to buy mountain/lake property. :eek: Soon you'll be able to get pure gas AND granola bars. :poke:

[NightTrain]

Do you know what big city liberals do when they get some money??? They head north to buy mountain/lake property. :eek: Soon you'll be able to get pure gas AND granola bars. :poke:


Don't forget to check out Ziggy's huge selection of organic LSD behind the gas station.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7605&stc=1

[Abbey Marie]

Don't forget to check out Ziggy's huge selection of organic LSD behind the gas station.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7605&stc=1

All I can think when I look at this is- I'd love to take our power washer to that thing!
Even though I know it's not going to make a whit of difference in the end. :laugh:

[fj1200]

All I can think when I look at this is- I'd love to take our power washer to that thing!
Even though I know it's not going to make a whit of difference in the end. :laugh:

Correct, it would still be an RV up on blocks in the middle of nowhere. :eek:

[Abbey Marie]

Correct, it would still be an RV up on blocks in the middle of nowhere. :eek:


Not to mention the "outdoor" couch. :laugh2:

[fj1200]

Not to mention the "outdoor" couch. :laugh2:

It's a touch of class. I wonder how many "yard cars" we'd see if they had taken a wider shot. :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

It's a touch of class. I wonder how many "yard cars" we'd see if they had taken a wider shot. :laugh:


:laugh2: And doggies under the "porch"?

[Perianne]

:laugh2: And doggies under the "porch"?

Ya'll are hurting my feelings. You are describing MY house! :)

[Jeff]

Ya'll are hurting my feelings. You are describing MY house! :)

They are just jealous cause they don't have dogs under their porch :laugh: I don't have any under mine either I have to admit, hell they sleep on the porch. :laugh::laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

You two! I'll bet your houses are sweet. :cool:

[Jeff]

Do you know what big city liberals do when they get some money??? They head north to buy mountain/lake property. :eek: Soon you'll be able to get pure gas AND granola bars. :poke:

We like y'all to come out here, gives us something to do on the weekends, Go mess with the Muslims at their camp and then the liberals. :laugh:


OOO and you better bring your own granola bars. :laugh::laugh:

[NightTrain]

OOO and you better bring your own granola bars. :laugh::laugh:


Ohhhh I see how it is. A bit stingy with those, eh??

[Jeff]

Ohhhh I see how it is. A bit stingy with those, eh??

Prick :laugh::laugh::laugh:


We don't have them up here. But I am sure you knew that. :laugh::laugh:


Again, Prick :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Kathianne]

We like y'all to come out here, gives us something to do on the weekends, Go mess with the Muslims at their camp and then the liberals. :laugh:


OOO and you better bring your own granola bars. :laugh::laugh:
I make my own, I'll bring some! :laugh2:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ohhhh I see how it is. A bit stingy with those, eh??

Methinks, he bez in denial, or is that De Nile for Jeff?? :laugh:--Tyr

[NightTrain]

Methinks, he bez in denial, or is that De Nile for Jeff?? :laugh:--Tyr


Methinks Jeff doth protest too much. :2up:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Methinks Jeff doth protest too much. :2up:

And secretly eats his beloved granola bars too. :laugh:
I just wonder if his wife even knows that he is a closet liberal..- ;) Tyr

[Jeff]

And secretly eats his beloved granola bars too. :laugh:
I just wonder if his wife even knows that he is a closet liberal..- ;) Tyr

And yet another prick. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Kathianne]

Eh!

http://theannanfamily.blogspot.com/2011/10/amys-homemade-granola-bars.html

The Crunchy Conservative (http://theannanfamily.blogspot.com/)


10.29.2011

Amy's Homemade Granola Bars




My sister-in-law, Amy, e-mailed me this recipe and I immediately wanted to try it out. It's one of those rare baking recipes that doesn't have to be exact. LOVE. You can also customize it by substituting and adding ingredients. DOUBLE LOVE.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YJSB7vsyI5w/TqvsnXiFn_I/AAAAAAAAB4Y/lScs8q9KAeg/s320/IMG_1006.JPG (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YJSB7vsyI5w/TqvsnXiFn_I/AAAAAAAAB4Y/lScs8q9KAeg/s1600/IMG_1006.JPG)

Ingredients


2 c. oats
1/4 c. brown sugar
1/2 c. wheat germ
3/4 tsp. cinnamon
1 c. flour
3/4 c. raisins
3/4 tsp. salt
1/2 c. honey
1 egg, beaten
1/4 c. applesauce
1/4 c. olive oil
2 tsp. vanilla
1 brown banana


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9qc1RKiHYUM/Tqvs33zWkWI/AAAAAAAAB4g/zV2H9s2cHEY/s400/IMG_0997.JPG (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9qc1RKiHYUM/Tqvs33zWkWI/AAAAAAAAB4g/zV2H9s2cHEY/s1600/IMG_0997.JPG)


Directions


Mix everything together and press into a greased 9x13 pan. Bake at 350 degrees for 30-35 minutes. Let cool and cut into bars.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FXdWFm4OQoU/TqvtCPq-_iI/AAAAAAAAB4o/INLlSxY1CfE/s320/IMG_0999.JPG (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FXdWFm4OQoU/TqvtCPq-_iI/AAAAAAAAB4o/INLlSxY1CfE/s1600/IMG_0999.JPG)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RWHDu6P-IZ8/TqvtCxSHjRI/AAAAAAAAB4w/OiJiyAFj8p0/s320/IMG_1003.JPG (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RWHDu6P-IZ8/TqvtCxSHjRI/AAAAAAAAB4w/OiJiyAFj8p0/s1600/IMG_1003.JPG)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-htalIwyGXIc/TqvtD9O_wnI/AAAAAAAAB44/jI-zYZ1Yryo/s320/IMG_1005.JPG (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-htalIwyGXIc/TqvtD9O_wnI/AAAAAAAAB44/jI-zYZ1Yryo/s1600/IMG_1005.JPG)


Some possible additions/substitutions include: pumpkin puree, chopped apple, coconut, chocolate chips, dried cranberries, chopped walnuts, sunflower seeds, flax seeds (instead of wheat germ), whole wheat flour (instead of white)... and whatever else your heart desires.

They are fantastic as a quick snack or to grab in the morning as you're heading out to work. Or (I'll put on my future mom hat) to give your kids when they're begging for a snack before dinner. Relatively healthy & not a total meal ruiner.



Posted by Meg @ The Crunchy Conservative (https://www.blogger.com/profile/12692673927040415181)at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://theannanfamily.blogspot.com/2011/10/amys-homemade-granola-bars.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(205, 140, 55);"><abbr class="published" itemprop="datePublished" title="2011-10-29T08:12:00-04:00" style="border: none;">8:12 AM</abbr>

[NightTrain]

I found a picture of Meg, the owner of that Granola Recipe :

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7607&stc=1

[Perianne]

This thread has been all over the place.

In other news, I mowed my yard today.

[Kathianne]

This thread has been all over the place.

In other news, I mowed my yard today.

Yeah, that's why I started a second thread for my position. I don't care if anyone else chimes in, but want to have a place to keep track. This one is gone, might as well enjoy it for what it is. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And yet another prick. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Me eat no granoli, yet you try to be holy
A prick I may bees
but
I eat no such junk
and hung no damn trees. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Hey Jeff , rumor is that granoli crumbs are fattening too!!! ;)-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Me eat no granoli, yet you try to be holy
A prick I may bees
but
I eat no such junk
and hung no damn trees. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Hey Jeff , rumor is that granoli crumbs are fattening too!!! ;)-Tyr
Terrible regarding fats. LOL! Tasty though.

[gabosaurus]

If anyone here is fond of granola and trail mix, you are a worse tree hugger than I am.

When I want a snack, you better not try to get between me and a chocolate bar. :cool:

[Jeff]

If anyone here is fond of granola and trail mix, you are a worse tree hugger than I am.

When I want a snack, you better not try to get between me and a chocolate bar. :cool:

OK, thank you Gabby, that tells the tale, no one eats that trash.


Gabs I think most woman are hooked to that chocolate bar.

[indago]

If anyone here is fond of granola and trail mix, you are a worse tree hugger than I am.

When I want a snack, you better not try to get between me and a chocolate bar. :cool:

Good Ol' Baby Ruth...

[Kathianne]

Greenfield is left, but his analysis is reflective of many. This of course is really speaking of the party splitting:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-2016-third-party-bid-213449


<header style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Will the GOP Mount a Third-Party Challenge to Trump?Experts—and history—suggest it's an increasingly plausible scenario. And could end in disaster.
</header><footer class="meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">By Jeff Greenfield
<time datetime="2015-12-20T07:41-0500" style="box-sizing: border-box;">December 20, 2015</time>
</footer>

...This is not the usual rhetoric of intraparty battles, the kind of thing that gets resolved in handshakes under the convention banners. These are stake-in-the-ground positions, strongly suggesting that a Trump nomination would create a fissure within the party as deep and indivisible as any in American political history, driven both by ideology and by questions of personal character.


Indeed, it would be a fissure so deep that, if the operatives I talked with are right, Trump running as a Republican could well face a third-party run—from the Republicans themselves.


That threat, in turn, would leave Republican candidates, contributors and foot soldiers with painful choices. A look at the political landscape, the election rules and the history of intraparty insurgencies suggests that it could turn 2016, a year that offered Republicans a reasonable chance to win the White House and with it total control of the national political apparatus, into a disaster...


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-2016-third-party-bid-213449#ixzz3uyNpFUC5

[gabosaurus]

If you want to stand up for your far right conservative principles, you will endorse Trump or Cruz.
If you want to have any chance to win back the White House, you will endorse Rubio.

That is about as simple as it gets.
My father in law says this is the worst choice of candidates since 1988.

[Gunny]

If you want to stand up for your far right conservative principles, you will endorse Trump or Cruz.
If you want to have any chance to win back the White House, you will endorse Rubio.

That is about as simple as it gets.
My father in law says this is the worst choice of candidates since 1988.

Nah. FIL lives in his own world. We got a good president in 88. In 2008? The biggest pussy in the world who is a worthless piece of sh*t and I just am amazed nobody's capped his dumb ass yet. He's probably only still alive because Biden would take over if it happened.

Try again. As usual.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Greenfield is left, but his analysis is reflective of many. This of course is really speaking of the party splitting:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-2016-third-party-bid-213449

Politico article, why would it present this and why would it seek to scare Trump voters???
Is it for a REPUBICAN CANDIDATE WINNING?--No
IS IT A SITE THATS GEARED FOR LOUSY DEMS TO WIN?--YES

Duly noted that you prefaced that Greenfield is left!!
AND HIS ANALYSIS IS REFLECTIVE OF "MANY"..
Of course in that "many" are dems that not only want Trump destroyed but also want a weaker Republican candidate to run against the Hildabeast.

Thus for me -- the accuracy, and judgment value of the cited article is nil....
As its just a hit piece on Trump, that attempts to actually bring about the fracture it so desperately wants, IMHO.-TYR