Replies

I am still mystified how you can assign Congress’s allegiance to Liberalism and hostility to Trump as a betrayal by Trump.

Because he collaborated in the creation of liberal legislation, approved of it, owned it, advocated it to the people, threatened to purge conservatives who opposed it. Anyway, he is the president, the titular head of the Republican Party, the party in control of both houses of Congress, it is absurd to believe that his staffers were not collaborating in the writing of the legislation with congressional staffers. In any event, he adopted it and he owns it.

And you can’t get Ted Cruz out of your system.

I did not refer to Ted Cruz, you did. I referred to Article V. You are attempting to put words in my mouth and assign views which I did not express. I am glad we both agree on Article V as a solution. I believe Article V is our only real hope, as difficult as that might be, because Trump offers few long-term solutions to our difficulties of structure which he famously referred to as the swamp which must be drained.

If Trump is the answer as you apparently continue to believe, it is incumbent on him to demonstrate that with deeds (like a veto and a campaign to sustain that veto across the country) and to disabuse us of the very rational conclusions we continue to draw, not from what he said, but from what he has done.

FRiend. I have recently stumbled upon the documentaries of Adam Curtis and I have to admit I am fascinated. While I disagree with him on much of his liberal/progressive ideology I have to say I am intrigued by his perspective. He does bring forward facts the media and the gummint would rather not be widely understood. How he interprets their meaning I disagree with but one cannot disagree with facts and for revealing these facts I am grateful.

I wonder, though, at just where things are going. His recent “Hypernormalization” is pretty good, if you ask me. On simply has to get past his “Howard Zinn” tendencies and attempt to sift through the debris for those nuggets. It occurs to me that our “conservative” perspective contains some “embraced fallacies” possibly as hideous as those of the leftards so lately I have been pondering just what these might be and where this is all heading. Thoughts?

I mean, this guy has made a living by pointing out the unintended consequences of “embraced fallacies” for decades. Granted, they are largely “right wing” but he can be pretty hard on libtards as well.

During the campaign, “Conservative Principles” was code for Ted Cruz.

“If Trump is the answer as you apparently continue to believe...”

He is the only thing we have right now. Isn’t there ANYTHING he has done that you approve? Such as stopping the witch, for example? Gorsuch?

You can choose any 100& pure conservative that you prefer, put him in office, and Paul Ryan will still try to undercut him. And the Congressional Republicans will still vote for Ryan as Speaker. Congressional Republicans obviously don’t accept Trump as the titular head of the party. They did not with George W Bush and he was not conservative at all.

What good does it to change the Constitution if the courts won’t follow it?

Nor do I have faith that people today are up to achieving anything positive or better than the document. The problem is abiding by the Constitution not changing it.