Posted on 12/14/2015 1:30:34 PM PST by Isara
Rush is now in Cruz’s corner (with an emphasis on ‘corner’).
this pandering that you are so willing to now call brilliant and strategic is what I thoght we were hacked off at the GOP establishment for.
Apparently our principles are situational depending on who we are talking about. Sorry NOT ME. Truth is truth, period, and when Donald Trump is true, I support him, but when he’s full of bullshit, especially liberal bullshit or establishment bullshit, I will not.
I think I’ve indicated strategic, but I don’t think I’ve used the word brilliant. However, it might be. Someone has to get the win in November 2016. I’m betting it’s the candidate with the most votes. What do you think?
I believe that Romney lost because social/religious conservatives in large numbers did not vote for him in 2012.
I think winning is so important that I fear for the survival of a free republic if we get another 4-8 years of Obamaism or worse from Hillary. I think that we have ancient Scotus justices who will intentionally or unintentionally be off the bench in the next 4-8 years. I think that the promotion of more liberals within the civil service ranks will give a permanent liberal leadership to the Lois Lerner types throughout our different departments and agencies. I think our partners overseas, particularly Israel, will be forced into Masada like decisions regarding their alignments. I think our nation will be overcome with an insurmountable weight of anti-American immigrants whose tendencies have them gravitate toward despotic government.
We must win.
We must get all behind the eventual nominee. If Trump is trying to bring some of the supporters of the GOP-E into the fold, then more power to him.
Cruz will eventually have to go there, too. Just wait. You’ll see.
I think you just stepped in it with your last statement and question....and I"m about to blow it up. Yes the most votes will win, and NO PANDERING LIKE THE ESTABLISHMENT DOES HAS NEVER EVER EVER WORKED. How can you be so blind. Your anti establishment hero just went full establishment, something that infuriated Levin and disappointed Rush - something REAGAN would never do......and yet you defend it now. BLIND BLIND BLIND .
You’re just wrong. I might think that calling McConnell a liar is something long overdue, but it is not liberalism to state that one disagrees with that tactic and that it feeds fuel to the accusation that Cruz lost control. It would be liberalism to say that Obama’s TPA should have been supported. (Something, by the way, that Cruz voted FOR.)
With respect, I don’t want a Republican, I want a conservative running against Hillary. Donald is a Populist, but not a conservative.
My take on your response is that you believe that Donald is the right guy and that everyone should get out of the way so he can run against Hillary. I think Cruz is the right guy, let’s let the electoral process play out.
Do you really think the Kelo decision is “blather”? I found that ruling, permitting the government to auction off your property to the highest bidder in the private sector, to be terrifying. And personally, I find Trump’s support of such a concept to be pretty scary too.
In times of crisis, people look for a “strong man” to make things right. Donald has tapped into the feeling of the times perfectly, and so did others who ended up being pretty scary people. My personal belief is that Trump’s ultimate principle is “winning, no matter what it takes”. I want those qualities in a General, but not in the head of a Constitutional Republic.
And let us not forget, Trump is a totally unproven man in the public sector. Being conservative in nature, I’m very hesitant to give the most important elected office in the world to a man who has spent zero time in the political trenches. (I’m not equating Trump to Obama, but we’ve seen how disastrous an unproven entity in the White House can be.) Teddy Roosevelt, last century’s Populist, at least did a stint as governor before being tapped for VP. Leave it to Trump to decide that he should start at the top. Ironic, since I don’t believe he offered any winners on Apprentice the CEO position.
If the choice is Hillary or Trump, it’s Trump. I’ll even go so far as to say he’s my No.2, because I’m a little desperate about how things have been going also, but for me it would be Trump with grave reservations.
Let me help you out here, and please pay attention.
Slamming Cruz about the Senate is pure establishment through and through.
Supporting ethanol is pure establishment AND pure liberalism through and through.
Slamming Scalia is pure liberalism through and through.
Try and refute a single syllable....
Supporting ethanol is not liberalism. It depends on what the candidate is saying.
For the uneducated (and I suspect you know little about grain farming) the ethanol debate involves real farms and real farmers who feed America. To simply END those supports after the government practically forced them to farm hedgerow to hedgerow, practically forced them to buy the equipment to do so, would be unethical blindness to the culpability of the government at the expense of America’s farmers.
Also, for the uneducated, “gallon to gallon” is not the proper formula for determining the cost of ethanol compared to gasoline. The real forumula would take into account that grain used to produce ethanol does NOT lose its usefulness as feed for livestock. One must SUBTRACT from the cost of production the value of the livestock feed and/or the value of the meat/dairy produced.
Saying that slamming Cruz on his reputation as a rabble rouser is not liberalism if you’re focused on the methodology and not on Cruz’s reason for protesting. So, it depends on whether you are supporting the establishment’s position or whether you’re objecting to the style/decorum of the method used.
So, just because I disagree with your methodology of condescension does not mean that I am a liberal. I’m simply pointing out that you use rudeness as a tool, and that I don’t think it gains you anything.
In fact, I think it hurts your arguments.
Correction:
Saying that slamming Cruz on his reputation as a rabble rouser is not liberalism IS TRUE if you’re focused on the methodology and not on Cruz’s reason for protesting. So, it depends on whether you are supporting the establishment’s position or whether you’re objecting to the style/decorum of the method used.
I thought your only hero was Jesus.
as you have admitted, you have a lot of economic liberalism in your past, and present. You just proved it.
Jesus?
I’m going to bet that I’ve donated more money to Cruz than you have.
Sure, CEW, finding the real cost of an item is liberalism.
Arguing for some standards of decorum is liberalism.
he wasn’t arguing for some standards of decorum....he was quoting the McConnell McCain Graham establishment playbook.
You don’t understand the Senate at all. Besides its utter bullshit that Cruz didn’t have decorum. He stood his ground, but he was not yelling and screaming as your overgrown middles schooler claimed.
So, does a disagreement on decorum have a conservative position? Is everything under 80 decibels conservative and anything over it liberal?
no, decorum is non ideological, except when it parrots the talking points of either the establishment or the jurassic media. When they own the talking point, as they do on Cruz in the Senate, then agreeing with them is well, agreeing with them period end of discussion.
Rush and Levin and Deace and others with me on this BTW.
But you have just agreed that standards of decorum is not ideological.
Now, on to corn farmers.
I think the desperation of the establishment media/political class created a non-story.
The whole monologue showed this was nothing like they spun.
bye.
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.