Indeed she does, and I'm glad she does, since it marks her for what she is.
Indeed, with any luck, she may be rolled into an unmarked grave wearing it.
Posted on 03/26/2017 10:04:22 PM PDT by detective
A civil war has begun.
This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.
The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.
It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Consequently, there have been some very opinionated comments by supporters of both sides of the discussion.
I'm convinced that it's a very valid question to ask which outcome regarding this bill is actually better or worse. The President was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't.
The way that Speaker Paul Ryan handled this bill, both in its inception and its rollout, was shameful, because it didn't even have the veneer of what was talked about during the election cycle, and what the voters who elected President Trump wanted (patient-centric, free-market, repeal Obamacare, etc.).
It really couldn't have been a more profound act of betrayal by the GOPe, as embodied by the Speaker of the House. Either Paul Ryan was being deliberately malicious towards the President, or he is so deeply indoctrinated into the corrupt Uniparty Swamp as to be utterly incorrigible.
I believe it betrays Paul Ryan's barely concealed intent to sabotage this Presidency. Ryan is, essentially, part and parcel of the Establishment which sought with all of its might to prevent a Trump Presidency, and his work in undermining the President has just begun, I fear. That's why I believe he should be replaced forthwith.
But I digress. With respect to your rebuke of the tone of my post, your point is well taken.
I hope that my point can still be heard, however poorly it was conveyed in my initial post. Let me restate:
I believe decent and Constitutionally knowledgeable American patriots of good conscience can come down on either side of the question which so recently has occupied our collective attention: tha AHCA.
I also maintain that disparaging someone on the opposite side of the issue as knowing nothing about Constitutional authority, in this particular case, is somewhat gratuitous.
It's quite possible, as annoying as the case may be,that passing this law might have been better for the People, if not the President, than not passing it.
It's not as cut and dried as everyone thinks, IMHO, and therefore the acrimony against those who have a different opinion on what should have happened, should probably be reduced by both sides.
I find this whole series of events educational, challenging, disturbing, confusing, infuriating, and about a dozen other adjectives, mostly negative ones.
Having said all that, my criticism was a response to what you posted—which was somewhat of an insult to the patriotism of those on the other side of this debate—people whose knowledge of Constitutional authority is quite adequate.
As I suggested, I'm convinced there's room for legitimate disagreement on what would have been best for the People and this Presidency, and the realization that those two ideals could be at odds in this case is problematic...
Who started massive anti-establishment pro-liberal movement? They did. Why don't you compare boomer liberals with previous generation than later generations who the boomer left brainwashed so successfully? They decided to break with previous generations and existing institutions in deliberate and organized manner. They are the ones who started the destruction which is ongoing today.
Read history from about 1852 through the start of the Civil War. Things now are not nearly as different as they seem on the surface.
There were groups battling of media, the big newspapers with well known names taking sides on issues and the small newspapers or pamphleteers publishing with a narrow focus, often deliberately trying to incite unrest and violence, plus weekly pulp magazines that would print anything, true or false, they could attach an eye catching image to (forerunners of they National Enquirer genre). Aside from the largest city newspapers, they mostly had small, localized, circulation but which often got a surprisingly widespread distribution through railroad employees and travelers carrying them around the country plus even sharing them via the mail.
I'd say wait and see if something similar to Bloody Kansas develops in the Southwest or in large cities from the clash between those intent on ignoring illegal immigration and those intent on stopping and reversing it.
That's where the fuse was really lit because that's where issue that could be used to hide the real, money issues, came to a head in a way that generated a lot of emotional energy.
JMHo
Indeed she does, and I'm glad she does, since it marks her for what she is.
Indeed, with any luck, she may be rolled into an unmarked grave wearing it.
As we have seen time and again, many who call themselves Republicans are but Progressive-lites who work the will and way of hard-core totalitarians. They must be counted among the enemies of individual freedoms.
were the Supreme Court justices who ratified Roe versus Wade and all the quotas and affirmative action and civil rights preference precedence Boomers?
Were the Supreme Court justices who voted in the Everson case where the Wall of Separation became law were they boomers?
What about the legislators who approved their nominations were they boomers....?
All that hamfisted civil rights and open borders minority heavy immigration stuff mid 60s was voted in not by boomers But by boomer parents and grandparents
You have had a habit of boomer bashing I assume for personal reasons for years here
And that’s fine if it were fact based but it isn’t
Your generation is more libtard and it’s not my fault nor my parents or my grandparents
It’s yours
If you want to start a real origin of sin in leftism in America
I blame the huge immigrations waves after the Anglo Saxon founding and Irish bumps
Mostly German and Scandinavian and more importantly German and Eastern European and Uke and Russian and so forth white immigrants who were really the very first modern leftists to bring humanism and progressivism and a doubt of Christianity with them (no not all were Jews....many were Lutheran and Congregationalist )
The Fabian socialist....folks more inclined to soak up progressive ideology than the English speaking founders or even the French and Spanish had been
That’s where the worm turned in my opinion....3-4 generations prior to the post WWII boom
We had plenty libtard from then on....that laid the seeds for the Camp of the Saints we now live with
What’s funny but escapes you is that soon enough the World War II and Elvis generations will be all dead and Boomers will be the most dependable conservative left...sad but funny
You being young will be too PC to acknowledge but you do know we’re talking about the WHITE VOTE when we nuance like this
There is little age variable in the non white vote except maybe Vietnamese and Cubans
The real place where boomers really jumped the rails culture wise was sex.....for one reason
The pill
Thanks very much for posting this excellent explanation of what we are seeing right now. This is a must read for our side.
The leftist media is our greatest enemy. If the leftist agenda was properly exposed by an honest media, it would be rejected. That isn’t going to happen when the vast majority of the media supports and contributes to their common agenda.>>> i agree and we must understand how to defend ourselves when we assemble. I think we all need educations in creating hollow squares formations when attacked.
It started with the progressives in the 1890s and accelerated with communists in academia in the 1930s.
Every liberal is a violent totalitarian thug.
Meanwhile, Trump is handing more and more power within his administration to liberal Manhattan Democrats (Jared Kushner and Gary Cohn), who are involving more Democrats. And he has used his first, botched legislative attempt to vow to work with the Democrats in Congress instead of the conservatives, who are now being threatened with primary challenges.
There will be no excuse of they screw him on this issue. This is an issue that should be in the conservative/patriot wheelhouse.
Please, God don't let Paul Ryan be the sponsor of this next piece of legislation...
Ryan worked with the Trump team on the bill and Trump pushed it as hard as he could. It would be handy to absolve him of responsibility on it, but not accurate.
You have just perfectly demonstrated ForYourChildren’s point.
I'm not trying to absolve anyone, but Paul Ryan bears the primary blame, and there's no doubt about that.
However, it can't be reasonably argued that President Trump is trying to sabotage Paul Ryan, but the converse is eminently possible, if not highly probable.
The tax cut issue should be an easy win, absent GOPe sabotage. So Congress needs to get its ass in gear and deliver. They're the governing majority now, and acting like an opposition party is not a legitimate role for them any longer...
Well said and I couldn’t find anything I disagree with.
RIght—Ryan is not Trump’s friend.
But the buck stops with Trump and he is the one who was elected nationally, and the larger blame IMO rests with him.
He chose, and he chose poorly, and now he is compounding it by using it as an excuse to ally with the Democrats, rather than the conservatives, in Congress.
BTW; my criticism was meant to be constructive. For the sake of argument I will take your criticism to be the same way.
What Trump should have done is used his influence to get the GOP in Congress to fully repeal Obamacare in reconciliation and replace it with the free market principles that have been missing in the healthcare market for decades. Most importantly that would involve the repeal of McCarron-Ferguson and the phasing out of the tax deduction for employer-provided insurance.
The latter is only politically feasible when coupled with the proposed cuts in personal income taxes. And the proposed cuts in personal income taxes are only feasible with such a phaseout. That is because the healthcare tax break would effectively be replaced by the lower tax rates, and the lost tax revenue from the lower rates would be replaced by the phaseout of the employer health insurance tax break.
That was the clear and obvious combination to bundle and put into reconciliation this spring. And Trump didn’t do it.
Nonsense. He's not the legislature. And he's the one that got concessions that Ryan didn't want to give.
It's not even close who is more to blame for the debacle, except for the predictable anti-Trump crowd.
The Speaker of the House is the one who introduced this bill. It was authored and rolled out under his supervision. He's the leading legislator in the House. The President gave him a chance and the Speaker blew it.
Nope, a new president has his greatest legislative powers at the start of his term—and he most effectively uses them by presenting a bill to Congress and then lobbying both the reps in Congress and the American people to get it passed.
Trump largely ceded that power and authority to Ryan and the RINO leadership in Congress. Now he is using that failure as an excuse to work with the Democrats at the expense of the conservatives.
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.