Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nucluside; eartick
Yeah, a conservative site where a lot of posters speak ill of The National Review and have from well before the magazine took a position against Trump's candidacy.

You, of course, overlook the possibility that eartick was being sarcastic.

So long as American nationalism was more-or-less identical to fidelity to the American founding, American nationalists were de facto American conservatives (that is adherents of the position that in Europe and Australia is called "classical liberalism", possibly with a tilt toward what in Europe is called conservatism). Trump has produced a version of American nationalism separate from American conservatism, and a lot of posters to this site favor that version. If you want proof, look at the more serious posts praising Trump for snubbing CPAC.

15 posted on 03/05/2016 12:43:11 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: The_Reader_David

Screw National Review, I don’t have a lot of love for them either. With notable exceptions, they are almost as liberal as Donald Trump. Please don’t give me the stock Trump answer for that: I mean that Reagan changed too. Reagan changed over a lifetime and Trump changed for one election cycle!
As far as making deals with the Democrats, which is Trump’s main selling point for domestic politics; making deals over constitutional issues had better not happen! We already have a president who can deal with Democrats, and where did that get us? We don’t deal with Democrats, we beat their asses with straight up votes! Please do not lecture me on Classical Liberalism, I’m kinda well versed in all of that.
As for Trump creating an offshoot of conservatism that favors nationalism, you are wrong. It is called “neo-populism”. Read up on William Jennings Bryan and...Ross Perot.
By the way, Trump made apology on Fox and Friends this morning for missing CPAC to go to Kansas. He said he would be there for sure next year. I’ll bet he doesn’t show if he loses. He’ll be attending Democrat fundraisers.
Finally, if I missed sarcasm on this thread it’s because I underestimated the intellectualism of it. Know what chaps my ass? If Trump wins I will have to vote for him! I’m actually going to have to vote for a real estate huckster who breaks contracts and changes his views on immigration on the debate stage, because he’ll be running against a socialist. I swore that after McCain I would never settle again...well, s—t!!


16 posted on 03/06/2016 6:25:04 AM PST by Nucluside (ready)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: The_Reader_David

By the way, we share political auto biographies. I was a charter member of YAF when they went nationwide in, I think, 1966. I read Wm. F. Buckley’s God and Man at Yale when I was 13.


17 posted on 03/06/2016 6:35:42 AM PST by Nucluside (ready)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: The_Reader_David; Nucluside
Very sarcastic.

What I was hitting was that Trump was throwing yet again Conservatives under the bus to play to crowds where he would not have to answer straight up questions.

He knew he would not have to stand on a stage and go man on man with a person asking direct questions and ANSWER it.

No he took the easy street and stood on a Reatlity TV stage instead

18 posted on 03/06/2016 4:28:25 PM PST by eartick (Been to the line in the sand and liked it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson