Skip to comments.
GOP embracing idea of Trump as the nominee
myrtlebeachonline.com ^
| Andrew Shain
Posted on 01/16/2016 6:32:06 AM PST by RoosterRedux
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: RoosterRedux
It seems one of the last stages of grief has been reached.
2
posted on
01/16/2016 6:33:10 AM PST
by
Lurker
(Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
To: RoosterRedux
Several cliches come to mind...something about seeking to make a virtue of necessity. Or recognizing the inevitable, relaxing and enjoying it.
3
posted on
01/16/2016 6:35:25 AM PST
by
gogeo
(If you are Tea Party, the GOPee does not want you.)
To: hoosiermama; onyx; Jane Long; V K Lee; conservativejoy; RitaOK; Black Agnes; nopardons; ...
4
posted on
01/16/2016 6:35:26 AM PST
by
RoosterRedux
(Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light - John Milton, Paradise Lost)
To: RoosterRedux
They’ve either reached “acceptance” or are trying some reverse psychology on us.
Either way, makes no difference, the ONLY WAY Trump can be defeated is if he defeats himself - no strategy from the GOPe, the Dems, the media or anyone else will affect his march to the White House. It is all in his hands.
5
posted on
01/16/2016 6:35:31 AM PST
by
BobL
(Who cares? He's going to build a wall and stop this invasion.)
To: RoosterRedux
They have figured out that Trump is a Liberal like they are, and a lot smarter.
6
posted on
01/16/2016 6:35:43 AM PST
by
doug6352
To: Lurker
They’re doing this with the realization and resignation that they have a collective voter gun to their heads.
They’ve finally realized a large part of the people that supported their tricks and lies these last 2-3 decades are wise to them and ready to pull the trigger on the whole damn lot of them.
7
posted on
01/16/2016 6:38:07 AM PST
by
Gaffer
To: doug6352
Cruzers’ definition of “liberal”:
lib*er*al - (noun) - Not Ted Cruz.
End of thought process.
8
posted on
01/16/2016 6:39:00 AM PST
by
Pravious
To: BobL
Bob, at this point, I don’t even think Trump could defeat himself.
9
posted on
01/16/2016 6:39:04 AM PST
by
RoosterRedux
(Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light - John Milton, Paradise Lost)
To: Lurker
Or Trump supporters are now on the same side as GOPe.
10
posted on
01/16/2016 6:40:40 AM PST
by
Tzfat
To: Lurker
No. It is like the scorpion and the frog. They have finally figure out that Trump is the only one crossing the river and they want to climb on his back.
What GOPe needs to be is gone, nuked into oblivion, so that the green shoots of a new party can start to take root in the wasteland they have left.
To: RoosterRedux
To: RoosterRedux
13
posted on
01/16/2016 6:42:38 AM PST
by
sockmonkey
(Of course I didn't read the article. After all, this is Free Republic.)
To: RoosterRedux
Where's the surprise in that?
A bunch of "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" (who are SOCIALISTS at heart) see their coming LOSS OF POWER, finally decide to accept another SOCIALIST.
Remember WHO those SO-CALLED Republicans ARE ! George Will is a DemocRAT who got SO OFFENDED by the DemocRATS, that he couldn't tolerate being associated with all those "CRAZIES" .
Now for a deeper understanding of just WHO George Will IS: The word "neocons" is ONLY used by LIBERALS, trying to insult Conservatives.
The is no such thing as a "NEW" Conservative.
Conservatives ARE Conservative, plain and simple.
But read this"Liberals, Conservatives, and Neocons - - - Learn the Difference!
March 12, 2014
Almost everybody is confused about the word "neoconservative" and its shortened form, "neocon."
I find that liberals/Democrats seem to use it as a sort of disrespectful form of "conservative,"and probably have no idea the the words have distinct meanings.
On the other hand, I know of some conservatives who define it as "new conservatives,"meaning people who were formerly something else, but have converted to conservatism.
Both are wrong.
As near as I can tell, "neo-" doesn't apply to any other word that way -formerly not X, but having become X.
No, "neo-" almost always refers to an ideology that is different from the root word in a significant way.Neoconfederates are not people who want to secede and become a separate country.
They want the ideals of the Confederacy to be applied to modern politics, more or less, but not all of them.
Neoliberal is a more vague term,but it specifically applies to people who may have SOME of the attributes of liberals,
but who contradict liberalism in their advocacy of free trade and privatization
and other ideas usually thought of as conservative.
And, finally, neoconservatives are mostly those moderate cold war LIBERALS who defected to the Republican party when the Democrats got totally flaky with McGovern and his ilk.
Their ultimate origin, however, is not the Democratic party but the Trotskyite movement.
Jack Kerwick elaborates.
Read this: Most "Conservatives" Are Secretly Neoconservatives
12 March, 2014, by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.
A colleague of mine has drawn my attention to a Washington Post blog post - "Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals" - by a Professor John Sides, a political scientist at Georgetown University.
Sides agrees with fellow political scientists Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, co-authors of Ideology in America.
Ellis and Stimson CONTEND thatAmerica is, at bottom, a "center-left nation,"
for while "30 percent" of self-described "liberals" are consistent in endorsing "liberal" policy prescriptions,
the same sort of consistency can be ascribed to only "15 percent" of "conservatives."
And another "30 percent" of "conservatives" actually advance "liberal" positions.
In short, Americans may TALK the talk of "conservatism," but they WALK the walk of "liberalism."
That is, they favor Big Government.
Sides, Ellis, and Stimson, it seems clear to me, are "liberals."
It doesn't require much reading between the lines to discern this.
That they associate "liberals," and "liberals" ALONE, with such virtues as "consistency" and such lofty ideals as "a cleaner environment" and "a stronger safety net" is enough to bear this out.
Yet in peddling the ridiculous, patently absurd notion that"conservatives" see the media as PROMOTING "conservatism,"
the verdict regarding their "liberalism" is seen for the NO-BRAINER that it is.
There is, though, another CLUE that unveils Sides', Ellis', and Stimson's ideological PREJUDICES:They equate the term "liberalism" with a robust affirmation of Big Government.
They treat "liberalism" synonymously with its modern, "Welfare-Statist" incarnation.
There is no mention here of the fact that, originally, "liberalism" referred toa vision that attached supreme value to individual liberty,
a vision in which government played, and had to play, a minimal role in the lives of its citizens.
And there is no mention of the fact that, if "liberalism" is now "an ugly word,"
it is because the very same socialists who made "socialism" an ugly word hijacked "liberalism" when it enjoyed a favorable reception
and visited upon it the same fate that they secured for "socialism."
In other words, if Sides himself wanted to be bluntly honest, heâd have to admit that "liberals" are secretly socialists.
Still, though their premises are bogus, Sides and his colleagues draw the correct conclusion thatmost "conservatives" are NOTHING OF THE KIND.
The truth of the matter is thatthe vast majority of contemporary "conservatives"; are neoconservatives.
Now, "neoconservatism" is a term that hasn't the best reputation.
It has ALWAYS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL,
and most of its proponents have DISAVOWED IT to the point of, preposterously, condemning it as an "anti-Semitic" SLUR.
But George W. Bush and his party inflicted potentially irrevocable damage upon the label.
"Conservatism" is a more marketable label.
Nevertheless, the reality is that neoconservatism is indeed a distinct school of political thought.
Beyond this, it is fundamentally different in kind from classical conservatism.
Irving Kristol, the so-called "Godfather" of neoconservatism, an appellation that he readily endorsed, ADMITS this in noting boththat neoconservatism exists
and that "conservative" "can be misleading" when used to describe it.
Neoconservatism, you see, is THE INVENTION OF LEFTISTS like Kristol himself.
When the Democratic Party began veering too far to the Left in the 1960s, Kristol and more moderate leftists began turning toward the Republican Party.
So as TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM traditional conservatives, they coined the term "neoconservatism."
Neoconservatives, Kristol asserts, are "not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state" -even if they reject the "vast and energetic bureaucracies" created by the Great Society.
Neoconservatives ENDORSE "social security, unemployment insurance," and "some kind of family assistance plan," among other measures.
But what's most interesting, particularly at a time when ObamaCare has DIVIDED the country, is that Kristol reminds us thatneoconservatives SUPPORT "some form of national health insurance."
In all truthfulness, however, neither a degree in political science nor an IQ above four is required to know thatneoconservatism has always championed Big Government
for it is its foreign policy vision more than anything else that distinguishes it from its competitors.
For neoconservatives, America is "exceptional" in being, as Kristol puts it, "a creedal nation,"the only nation in all of human history to have been founded upon an "ideology" of equality, of "natural rights."
The U.S.A., then, has a responsibility to promote this ideology throughout the world.
And it is by way of a potentially boundless military - i.e. Big Government - that this "ideological patriotism" is to be executed.
Had the foregoing political scientists been looking in the right places, they would BE FORCED TO CONCLUDE that most "conservatives" are secretly neoconservatives.
So, you see that those WHO THEY CALL
"neoconservatives", are really nothing more than
the old moderate side of the DemocRATS.
It's just THAT SIMPLE .
14
posted on
01/16/2016 6:45:04 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: RoosterRedux
15
posted on
01/16/2016 6:46:09 AM PST
by
RC one
(race baiting and demagoguery-if you're a Democrat it's what you do.)
To: RoosterRedux
No party, candidate, or PAC ever will get my money — stopped financial support of the liars, which is all of them, long ago. The only things I owe the political process are my voice and vote (or no vote).
PS: If you don’t understand a ballot measure, proposition, or candidate vote NO, for another candidate, or abstain. Also, do not vote for any career politician, which is most of them.
To: RoosterRedux
Have you seen Trump’s tweet this morning? 6 months ago I used to cringe and say this is the end for him, now I laugh and say it’s a little harsh, but they are valid points.
17
posted on
01/16/2016 6:48:27 AM PST
by
patq
To: RoosterRedux
Only the LIEberal wing of the party. The rest are disgusted by the idea an avowed DUmocrat would get any traction or garner any support.
18
posted on
01/16/2016 6:49:21 AM PST
by
RasterMaster
("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
To: Tzfat
If you want your little Cruz to win the primary, then get out there and convince your American voters. Otherwise deal with Trump and don’t complain because obviously you didn’t do enough. Sorry to be blunt but that is as true as can be.
To: Pravious
Trump recently criticized Antonin Scalia because Trump supports affirmative action.
Trump is a big-government Liberal, who also has very good positions on illegal and Muslim immigration, which have earned him a lot of conservative support. He also has an America-first attitude to foreign trade which is attractive, although I’m doubtful how well it would work out in practice.
Personally I’d prefer a real conservative as President, but I guess many people want another big-government Liberal, just a much smarter one than we have had in the past.
20
posted on
01/16/2016 6:51:07 AM PST
by
doug6352
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson