Posted on 05/04/2016 8:44:43 AM PDT by Innovative
As predicted in this space yesterday, Donald Trump rolled to a big win in Indiana and Ted Cruz dropped out of the GOP presidential race. Trump is now on track to hit the 1,237 delegates he needs to win the nomination on the first ballot in Cleveland in July. The focus now shifts to how Republicans will deal with the fact that Trump — who is neither a fiscal nor a social conservative — is their standard bearer. Some began on Tuesday to line up behind the Manhattan-based brand manager. The RNC officially acknowledged Trump as the victor. But there are plenty of big names — including Cruz — who have not lined up behind Trump and may never do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Oompa Loompa doom-pa-dee-what /
Another sleeper account burnt by you /
Oompa Loompa doom-pa-dee-dee /
Another sleeper account Got. The. Zot!
Nixon in ‘72 had bad numbers.
So true. Trump will face a fairly hostile Congress. More hostile than they have been toward Obama.
One CAN be pro-America and pro-Constitution AND still favor Trump. I think of myself as pro-Constitution and Pro-America and I think Trump's impending nomination is a great misfortune. NOT, however, as great a misfortune as having Comrade Grandma as POTUS. I will vote for the mess that is Trump but absolutely without hope or joy or enthusiasm.
Assuming, as you apparently do that Trump's ambition is to become America's next very own McGovernite Neville Chamberlain in foreign policy and that he would continue the international ass-kissing tour that is one of the main tenets of Obamunism, would not allow me to vote for him.
However, whatever his shortcoming and they are many, cowardice in the face of our nation's enemies is NOT among them. His brash personality and the quick trigger on his mouth suggest that he has a lot of tongue-lashing and maybe more in waiting for anti-American foreign enemies and maybe some even more physical and badly needed responses.
I don't care for FDR's politics but he was a terrific war leader. Maybe Trump is in the same mold.
In your naive passion for the foreign policy of our weak and fragile little infant republic of the 1790s and to reject the manly and muscular foreign policy of The Democrats (except Wilson) until 1972 and the Republicans (though sometimes imperfectly) since the political demise of Truman.
As to the hilarious statement to the effect that only Cruz was "arguably as Conservative as Trump," makes me think you need a course in remedial vocabulary. The cramped foreign policy of isolationism and Uncle Scroogism on everything else died a deserved death a verrrrry long time ago.
It is not coming back with either Donald Trump or with Charles Lindbergh rising from his grave in a new version of the Night of the Living Dead. Your hopes and dreams are not the reality of Donald Trump and to some extent that is for the good. You may nave noticed that the America First Committee (an isolationist embarrassment) folded its tent voluntarily the day after Pearl Harbor. They were honorable men and women but damn fools. Because of their honor, they pay a lesser penalty for their heresy. After years of pleading with FDR, Lindbergh was allowed to fly in the Army Air Corps.
We have had enough and then some of immigration now and also of unfavorable trade policies. Cracking down on both is certainly a conservative goal but Washington and Hamilton were both BIG cheerleaders for an amoral foreign policy (necessary to the weak infant US but amoral nonetheless) of dealing business-wise with absolutely ANYONE and tailoring a foreign policy friendly to EVERYONE. You may have noticed that Brittania no longer rules the seas and that even with terrific advance planning and preparation, cannot rationally expect to recapture the US in its infancy as they tried in 1814 until (though it happened just after the still unknown signing of a treaty in Europe ending that war), Andy Jackson and Pierre Lafitte kicked their Brit asses at New Orleans, thoroughly ventilated and killed General Pakenham (Wellington's brother-in-law and aide at Waterloo), stuffed his corpse in a whisky cask, and mailed it to the widow as a warning to the Brits to mind their own business and keep out of the US.
Since then, we have survived greater evils such as Nazi Germany and soviet union and we are working, however pathetic the effort, until Trump takes office, ISIS and the other Islamofascists.
WHEN Trump takes office, I fully expect him to clean out the generation of politically correct fearful sissies that Obozo has appointed to run the military into the ground. A good start would be to bring Marine Corps General Mad Dog Mathis out of retirement, make him Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and purge the Obamunist sissy coddlers from the military and take and appoint those suggested by Mathis to run the other branches. That would be men intellectually and emotionally prepared to wage WAR when necessary, not nation build, not sissy diplomacy, just killing the enemy, breaking his things and expropriating his resources as necessary to pay for it and for all veterans' and GI Bill benefits for the military necessary to achieve the result.
THAT is a much more likely Trump military policy than trying to have a bunch of pervert enablers, civilian or military, sit in a nice big circle with Vladimir Putin, Raoul Castro, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Un, and 57 guys named Muhammed el Kaboomski holding hands around the campfire singing Kumbaya and smoking dope together. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Of course you want to juxtapose wimpy navel-gazing isolationist foreign policy fantasies against "interdependency" and "New World Order" and "diversity" (which has nothing whatsoever to do with foreign policy as it is a purely domestic fantasy).
You are far too intelligent (though not wise) as I learned in previous exchanges to actually believe that juxtaposition. The fact is that the true opposition is and ALWAYS will be American unilateralism. Like most Americans and the overwhelming majority of conservatives, I despise notions of a New World Order and ANY dependency much less interdependency, and I regard diversity as a domestic menace in violation of the 14th Amendment when imposed by government. Not only that, but I would abrogatemost NATO type treaties, retire the diployakkers from the State Department to a life-long stay in a little place called Alcatraz and balance the plush life they lived in five star hotels and restaurants while selling out our country and its interests in diployakker "negotiations."
If reflexive temper tantrums against Hispanics are a sufficient replacement for the rich tapestry of conservatism this year. That's OK. When the disaster strikes, actual conservatives will still be here in large numbers, sober and dedicated as ever and ready to clean up the mess made by others.
If you REALLY believe that "it is important to put the interests of your own people, foremost," here's how that works.
First: examine the question of WHAT is in the legitimate best broad interests of the USA and its people, including MORAL responsibility.
Second, once that is determined, DO whatever is necessary including war, to achieve those legitimate purposes. Not sit around singing Kumbaya and examining our collective navel while whining that those foreigners are just awful but none of our isolationist business.
PEACE!!!! IN OUR TIME!!!! Sell them the rope that they will use to hang us. Amoral $$$$$$ uber alles!
You are no authority on the meaning of conservatism or right or left when you advocate a foreign policy that Code Pink, Sean Penn and Noam Chomsky pine for.
Nixon.
Only time in my entire life I can remember my parents both crying...the night he resigned.
So you want the winners to court the losers?? Highly unlikely. You can either jump on the Trump Train to defeat Shrillary or not. There shall be no begging for your vote. You decide what’s best for you and your country, and them act. Simple.
Trump is saying 'Here is my agenda, if you like it or can live with it, come on board, otherwise I don't need you. Criticize it and me from the outside'.
That way you can decide for yourself, but he's not coming to run after you for your support.
It's an admirable stand, one which only a confident politician would take.
That's why you've never been confronted with it before
More important--for I do not give a damn, whether you like my explanation of why Trump is a true Conservative--so long as you do vote for him--your suggestion that a modern application of the Washington/Jefferson foreign policy is somehow McGovernite, shows a contemptible indifference to the history of our times. You completely confuse the need to defeat the Communists in the cold war, with the ludicrous "nation building" experiments of the Clinton/Bush/Obama era.
First of all, the Washington/Jefferson policy was premised upon preserving American interests, while dealing fairly with all who respected our interests. It was also based, as Jefferson put it, while Secretary of State, on "punishing the first insult." That is not pacifism nor isolationism; and it was brutally illustrated in the war with the Barbary Pirates, when Jefferson was President, when the Marines on an American frigate, operating in the Mediterranean--does that sound like isolationism--took over a Barbary Cruiser, and washed down the decks with the blood of the slaughtered pirates.
What the insane ideas behind the Dean Rusk foreign policy, which was what Clinton/BushII--not his father--and Obama represent is something very different than the Jeffersonian way to respond to an actual need.
I have tried to make that difference clear in the mock debate between "W's" Second Inaugural Address & George Washington's views, at my Conservative Resource Center: Washington/Bush Debate.
My personal views on foreign policy are also set forth in numerous articles at the same website. But again, whether you like my arguments or not is immaterial. Neither you nor Obama, nor Mrs. Clinton, have any right to sacrifice the lives & limbs of young Americans, or the treasures of their families, to impose Left-leaning notions of how other lands should be governed on other peoples. When American interests do not require it, we need to avoid destabalizing other regions.
You’re right about that, he doesn’t sound like a conservative to me at all. But I’m actually listening to what he is saying, unlike his supporters who have made up their mind because they like the presentation, and not the substance.
Pro-choice
Pro-sexual predators in women bathrooms
Pro=raising the min wage
Pro=anti-war blame Bush
By the time November comes around, we’re not going to be able to tell the difference between Trump or Hillary. They already sound the same to me.
You’ve listed a number of reasons why Trump doesn’t want or need you.
One note of caution, FWIW, Jim Robinson, your host, has said much the same thing as Trump as it relates to FR.
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.