Posted on 10/11/2015 11:16:38 AM PDT by entropy12
Thank you.
Impurity is not the goal. And your taking the leftward drift of the country intensely personally, as if your past failed votes were the only forces that mattered in it, is also way off base—the shift to the left has been an organic, global geopolitical process. However, you have succeeded in making much of the thread about your unhappiness, so I guess you win the thread.
But you haven’t made any winning arguments that will affect how others on the thread will view the election, because of your inaccuracies expressed as gospel. If your word can’t be trusted because you have not done the factual research, and you project that untrustworthiness onto the candidates, idealizing Cruz as the “only” possible solution to your discontent, how can we help you? We can’t. Thus your unhappiness proves itself to itself. And you think others are emotional about their candidates? Okaaaaay.
Your glowing tribute to Trump just made my point.
Yes, it is the same thing..
It is......No question about it.
Ah, but I have also made what you call a "glowing tribute" and I call a "positive marketability assessment" of Dr. Carson and Senator Cruz in other posts on this Forum. I'm a "both/and" kind of person who looks for the assets as well as the liabilities of the entire top tier of candidates, which would be those three, and does not become crushed, therefore, if my favorite is not nominated. People who do that are, at best "either/or" people. It's a short-sighted condition causing considerable unhappiness.
Been voting since Nixon...I rarely pick the winner in a republican primary. So I’ve been holding my nose for a generation now.
I made up my mind after 2012 that I was not going to do that any longer..
Frankly I think the country as we knew it, is a goner..kaput..dead duck. So I have little faith that anyone can put her back together. The average citizen today is a bought and paid for socialist shill. (and they don’t even know it)
Assets and liabilities were something I once did consider...However I would restate that as “electability”.
I’ve been hearing that term for decades now and that is why everything is so screwed up with the GOP.
Thus, I don’t care about it anymore..I want someone who thinks as I do and that’s that.
No moderates, no populists, just a straight shot conservative is all I can vote for because my voting days are swiftly coming to a close, so I want to end it on a good note for my last votes...
No more ooops.....No more shoulda could a’s...
I have no sympathy for “me, me, I, I, my vote, my feelings” assessments of whom to vote for. And I’ve been voting longer than you, with similar results. It just hasn’t been our century; but it still can be for our grandchildren if we don’t give up. We can’t help anything by shooting into the circle, sulking or avoiding.
I don’t see it a sulking or avoiding, I see it as a imperative that we either elect a Conservative, or we should elect none of the above.
I do not see how electing a political moderate can possibly be a good thing for my grandchildren or more particularly my great grandchild.
If you better America, you give them some sort of legacy that is much better than where we are going, so I always ask myself, “Where will this candidate likely take us?”
I do not ask, if he/she is electable, or if there are pros/cons, which are really just electability terms.
There have been many outsider candidates to vie for the presidency. There have been a plethora of what you could call mostly outsiders that have had one or more government positions but were never considered part of the DC cabal. The ones I refer to came along at a time when the people were fed up about their lives.
In most every one of these cases, if elected, or if they came by the presidency after a death or assassination as in the case of Teddy Roosevelt, their political constituency and thus their governance seems to me to be of the “Progressive” type.
This progressive policy has not served us well over the long term. It’s always overdone, always interferes with rights in the Constitution to fix something.,,,some social ill, some corruption, (take your pick, it’s a long list)
Because of the utter cockeyed nature of the Obama 8 years, the public is over reacting and is now looking at another one of these outsider candidates who excites them as a reformer, a fixer, a tough no nonsense president.
We have been here before.
History indicates that these kinds of situations often seem to yield someone with a progressive policy governance and those policies will do nothing to reverse what has occurred already. In fact it’s a double down. Reagan was one exception to this, Reagan IMO was a unintended home run. So lets leave him out of the story.
Electable these people are...
Popular at first these people are.
Fix things by reversing liberalism, they did not..
They simply added to it, by using previous powers seized by government to their advantage to enact reform, rather than give up powers seized from the people in previous administrations. They grew government. They used the power of government to correct all those ills they were elected to fix. At first the voters were thrilled.
But the flash in the pan does not last.
The above is both a historical read by me of populist dismay elected presidents or those who assumed the throne like Teddy Roosevelt. And it’s also a prediction of a sort, regarding Donald Trump.
Try as I might, I do not see any of the things I want in a smaller government president, One who returns usurped power back to the people and it’s Constitution. In a Donald trump administration.
I see a Teddy Roosevelt like result.
You are more than welcome. I’ll endeavor to be less abstruse on the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.