Posted on 09/08/2019 7:57:39 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford announced Sunday that he is running for president as a Republican, becoming the latest to challenge President Trump in the GOP primaries.
Sanford said the Republican Party is facing an identity crisis, and he wants the GOP to take a look at itself and do some soul searching.
“I think we have to have a conversation about what it means to be a Republican,” Sanford told “Fox News Sunday,” claiming the party “has lost our way.”
Sanford specifically made reference to the debt, deficit and government spending. Other conservatives expressed concern about these issues when Trump helped Congress pass a spending bill that increases spending caps and suspends the debt ceiling, allowing for more government borrowing until July 31, 2021. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., blasted his colleagues at the time, saying it “marks the death of the Tea Party movement in America.”
Sanford also challenged Trump’s tactics when it comes to trade, saying that engaging the world when it comes to trade is “one of the hallmarks of the Republican Party.”
He also brought up political culture, which he said has been “damaged” by Trump. “We need to have a conversation about humility,” Sanford said, blasting Trump’s social media habits by claiming that a tweet “is not leadership.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Our abortion rights were legalized through a non-democratic process, the judicial system - see the danger with non-democratic governments yet?
Why isn’t Sanford more to blame on the deficit than Trump? He was part of a Republican House that proposed much higher levels of spending than the Trump budget did.
Um, Hillary lost. How did that help her or the Democrats?
Where the hell was Sanford demanding Paul Ryan and Republicans stop spending so much money? I must have missed him speaking out about it. That and running for speaker was his chance.
Bashing Trump, the only one that was trying to reign spending, shows what a phony he is.
Sanford is definitely the one man who can show us the way...to Argentina by way of the Appalachian Trail. It’s horrific how bums like this can shake off the scandal that ruined both his candidacy and marriage and act as though he’s the picture of morality. What’s even worse, he expects people to believe it.
“Um, Hillary lost. How did that help her or the Democrats?”
Already replied to this earlier - I was talking about the primary between Sanders and her. He received the majority of the vote according to several sources, but super delegates delivered the vote to her. I could give less than a s*** about the outcome, it was merely an illustrative example.
I think a primary probably be a good thing. Just imagine all those RINOs make them selves look like a horses ass.
How is that a red herring?
Were you not just arguing that we’re a Constitutional Republic? What’s more republican than a nomination and appointment by a body of elected representatives? Furthermore what does this have to do with our amendment process - the ratification process requires not only 2/3rds of the Senate/House, but also 3/4ths of the states legislatures agreeing. Nothing exists in a vacuum, the will of the people is expressed in there.
It won’t take long to count his votes.....I would guess in the teens.....but that’s just me!!!!
They all already have that position and they will defend it up until they are elected then it will be as if the election never happened and conservative issues will become flexible. GW spent like he was a drunken sailor after 6 months at sea and so did Paul and Mitch.
But now you’re arguing by extension that the judicial decree with respect to abortion is the will of the people. If so, then that expresses the danger of democracy more and more rather than (as you implied) the epoch thereof being undemocratic.
As is noted in several publications (including “The Conscience of a Conservative” in particular), the move towards democracy leads to tyranny of the majority. And if, again, socialism and democracy are actually “one and the same” as Woodrow Wilson put it, then the US Constitution is antithetical to this democracy.
“But now you’re arguing by extension that the judicial decree with respect to abortion is the will of the people. If so, then that expresses the danger of democracy more and more rather than (as you implied) the epoch thereof being undemocratic.
As is noted in several publications (including “The Conscience of a Conservative” in particular), the move towards democracy leads to tyranny of the majority. And if, again, socialism and democracy are actually “one and the same” as Woodrow Wilson put it, then the US Constitution is antithetical to this democracy.”
So because you disagree with the outcome you are disagreeing with the process that you just argued for in an earlier post?
Again I ask, what is more republican than the outcome of the SCOTUS judgement than a body of nominees who are voted on by a legislative body that is voted on by the constituents in a respective state? There is barely an element left there of a direct democracy - do you want it to be even more detached? Then a British style parliament is more suitable for your tastes, where elected representatives vote for the head of state?
Representation has to happen at some step of the process, or we are not a republic any more, merely a bureaucratic monarchy or oligarchy.
I didn’t see any Bush worship HERE. Mostly the opposite.
Wth is a democratic republic?
Silly attempt to sound smart
You took issue with one of my definitions - my point was that they overlap.
A democratic republic encompasses elements fro moth a democracy and a republic, which is what the US government is founded on.
You seem to have issues with reading comprehension, with all due respect. I was doing the complete opposite: rather, the subverting of the system that the Founding Fathers set up is what got us the ill results we see around us. As Elbridge Gerry said, “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.”
You also have a familiarity with this site’s native terms, e.g. “zot”. What was your former screen name?
“...I am really sick of that stupid phrase, “We need to have a conversation”
Ranks right up there with, “That’s not who we are” and “That’s not what we’re about”. You hear that all the time at the gatherings of limp wristed conversationalists. Makes me want to slit throats!!
Mark Sanford
LMAO....bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....running for President
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....thanks Mark, I needed a laugh today.....
Ok newb, go sell your nonsense elsewhere.
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.