By seizing the GOP, Trump would break it to pieces.
GO TRUMP, GO!!!
Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/10/together-i-shall-ride-you-to-victory.html
And there it is...
Whatever party or parties that adopted a budget funding Planned Parenthood after videos showed they were selling dead baby parts for profit needs to be destroyed.
Whatever political party or parties that voted to fund ‘refugees’ to come to our country and murder our citizens needs to be destroyed.
Destroy the GOPe. From the ashes, let a Phoenix rise!
Something that is really bothering me is the sweeping, cruel, hyperbolic, invective hurled Donald Trump’s way. Granted he can take care of himself and responds every effectively, but I would like to see these people, of every ideological stripe, have to prove the terrible things they say in a court of law. And I would like to issue a challenge to everyone on this forum. And that is, criticize the candidate(s) of your choice freely, challenge others’ beliefs, but avoid extreme and crazy language and be prepared to back up what you say. And, by the way, repeating media lies that have been proven false, does not an effective argument make.
“...politics an honorable...” If it was, none of these things would be happening...the bunch of lying politicians in DC are directly responsible for the present state of affairs. They campaign on one platform and, immediately, legislate (a stretch, I know) on another...McConnell “...look at how many Amendments we voted on...”
“,,,, is disqualified for the presidency by his erratic temperament, his ignorance about public affairs and his scary sympathy for authoritarianism. But for me, and I suspect for many, the largest problem is that Trump would make the GOP the party of racial and religious exclusion”
I give you Obama.
The most disgraced people in the nation.
They brought us GW Bush AND as a result, Obama.
I stopped reading when I read this:
"It [his angry resentment against invading Hispanics and Muslims]is not consistent with conservatism, which, at the very least, involves respect for institutions and a commitment to reasoned, incremental change."
The "invading Hispanics and Muslims" are not "reasoned, incremental change." The Hispanic invasion is creating unreasonable quick change that is having serious consequences. The huge inflow of illegal drugs have created Latin drug gangs and the associated violence. Criminal acts of all descriptions have come with the "invading Hispanics." The cost for social services have increased dramatically. No, this is not "reasoned and incremental change." Nor will the inflow of Muslims be "reasoned and incremental change." Check out the world's testing grounds in Germany, Sweden and France. They are having horrendous problems because of the Muslim "invasion." Americans would not stand for their daughters raped by these Muslim savages. And, they would not like entire communities turned over to Sharia law overnight. The change in America from the Muslim invasion would be so fast, Americans would not have time to react with "reasoned and incremental change."
From the party’s own mouth. Compassionate conservatism and social justice to get more victim group members takes priority over the US Constitution. “Feelings” and ‘feelgoodism’ over substance and justice according to the rule of law.
In truth, the GOP has finally reconciled itself that values don’t matter, it’s the number of new members it can get, and if pandering to them and giving up your core values and principles is needed, then so be it.
The party will have to be burned to the ground, frankly. There isn’t a way to fix it when it’s so overgrown with the Kudzu GOP - the roots go very, very deep.
Gerson can clutch his pearls all he wants. But it was he and his employers who lost touch with the grassroots. It is no longer Conservatives vs. Liberals, nor Democrats vs. Republicans. It is the Country Class vs. the Elites (in both Parties). These same grassroots voters from all sides of the political spectrum, will change the GOP forever.
The Bushies, particularly Jeb! have been stuck on stupid in an overly sentimental rich guy sort of way, when the rich guy in question is giving away other people’s stuff. They can hardly claim to have Lincoln as a forebear because Lincoln wasn’t an idiot.
Lincoln sided with an oppressed minority who gave blood, sweat, and at times their very lives to this nation and had done so for generations. He put his life on the line making a complex decision because it was the right thing to do, not because of hubris and a bunch of unexamined assumptions.
Lincoln was the leader of the new 'radical republicans'. He was a white supremacist who supported the American Colonization Society that wanted to send free blacks back to Africa. Lincoln was a lawyer by trade and a shrewd politician that perverted the Constitution to achieve his agenda. Lincoln was the architect of a bloody war that resulted in the slaughter of over 600,000 Americans; hardly a compassionate gesture.
Did you catch the part where he floated forming a third party if Trump gets the nomination?
He says that like it’s a bad thing.
If Cruz wins the nomination, then it wasn't really "a relatively small minority of the electorate" after all, was it?
-PJ
What happened to the notion that Hillary runs away with it if Trump is nominated?
BTW, wasn't the Adams/Jefferson election of 1796 supposed to be the epitome of low blows? And that was between two of our greatest Founders and Statesmen!
-PJ
“I have spent 25 years in the company of compassionate conservatives, reform conservatives, Sam’s Club conservatives, or whatever they want to call themselves, trying to advance an agenda of SOCIAL JUSTICE in America’s center-right party.”
“Social Justice” is NOT the type of term that ANY CONSERVATIVE would ever support. The only reason that I know and understand the term is because I have studied the left for many decades, and you have to get to know their language, in order to fight them.
As to what “Social Justice” means - it is basically a code word used by the left for Communism. It means the systematic looting of the ‘haves’ by the ‘have nots’, and if violence is needed to achieve that end, so be it. The term was developed by the left in response to the McCarthy Hearings, so that they would have a way of speaking to each other without others really understanding what they meant.
The fact that Gerson uses that term in the same sentence as describing conservatism IS JUST PLAIN SCARY.
I realize that a lot of people here are turned off by Trump, for many reasons, but people like Gerson simply NEED TO BE STOPPED. By using the term “Social Justice” he is beyond redemption and I suspect pretty much the entire party is beyond redemption. I do, however, agree with his analysis about Cruz, while Cruz is clearly the most conservative in the race he still hasn’t shown any signs of being able to reach beyond the conservative base (certainly compared to Trump), so he probably would lose in November, which means nothing changes in the Republican leadership (and we lose the Supreme Court for a generation)...and I agree that Trump can win, and can probably shake off a Third Party run, if he has Cruz or someone like him on his ticket.