Painful News For Conservatives As Newsweek Exposes the Truth About Der Gropenfürher

[Nosmo King]

Here's the part that defies explanation: Trump ran as a Populist. And as a new comer to the Republican Party. But not as a rock ribbed Conservative ideologue. What happened to all those Conservative principles? The Tea Party movement was, essentially, a bunch of deficit hawks, if they were to be believed. They were strict economic Conservatives. They worked to 'primary out' Republicans who did not fall inline with their orthodoxy. They called them RINOs.

They championed shutting down the government in a fit of political and economic pique. They claimed that their opposition to President Obama was not racial, but philosophical.

And yet they adore Donald Trump! Donald Trump who has declared his vision for the American budget to increase. To increase the size of government by spending more on the military, the infrastructure, building a ridiculous wall across the Mexican border and increasing the size of ICE, Border Patrol and other law enforcement. In other words, the size and power of the federal government.

Were all those pronouncements about cutting the size and budget of the federal government just so much bloviating, or are those Conservative ideals just so malleable that they were held insincerely by those who trumpeted support for them so loudly?

Conservatives principles are a means to an end. The end is the interests of America and Americans.

Trump's immigration and trade policies are obviously going to be good for America.

To the point that he blew all other candidates out of the water.

So Conservatives are more interested in being Isolationist than deficit hawks?

 

[Correll]

Here's the part that defies explanation: Trump ran as a Populist. And as a new comer to the Republican Party. But not as a rock ribbed Conservative ideologue. What happened to all those Conservative principles? The Tea Party movement was, essentially, a bunch of deficit hawks, if they were to be believed. They were strict economic Conservatives. They worked to 'primary out' Republicans who did not fall inline with their orthodoxy. They called them RINOs.

They championed shutting down the government in a fit of political and economic pique. They claimed that their opposition to President Obama was not racial, but philosophical.

And yet they adore Donald Trump! Donald Trump who has declared his vision for the American budget to increase. To increase the size of government by spending more on the military, the infrastructure, building a ridiculous wall across the Mexican border and increasing the size of ICE, Border Patrol and other law enforcement. In other words, the size and power of the federal government.

Were all those pronouncements about cutting the size and budget of the federal government just so much bloviating, or are those Conservative ideals just so malleable that they were held insincerely by those who trumpeted support for them so loudly?

Conservatives principles are a means to an end. The end is the interests of America and Americans.

Trump's immigration and trade policies are obviously going to be good for America.

To the point that he blew all other candidates out of the water.

So Conservatives are more interested in being Isolationist than deficit hawks?

You asked a serious question, I gave you a serious answer.

Would you like to address it.

 

[Nosmo King]

Here's the part that defies explanation: Trump ran as a Populist. And as a new comer to the Republican Party. But not as a rock ribbed Conservative ideologue. What happened to all those Conservative principles? The Tea Party movement was, essentially, a bunch of deficit hawks, if they were to be believed. They were strict economic Conservatives. They worked to 'primary out' Republicans who did not fall inline with their orthodoxy. They called them RINOs.

They championed shutting down the government in a fit of political and economic pique. They claimed that their opposition to President Obama was not racial, but philosophical.

And yet they adore Donald Trump! Donald Trump who has declared his vision for the American budget to increase. To increase the size of government by spending more on the military, the infrastructure, building a ridiculous wall across the Mexican border and increasing the size of ICE, Border Patrol and other law enforcement. In other words, the size and power of the federal government.

Were all those pronouncements about cutting the size and budget of the federal government just so much bloviating, or are those Conservative ideals just so malleable that they were held insincerely by those who trumpeted support for them so loudly?

Conservatives principles are a means to an end. The end is the interests of America and Americans.

Trump's immigration and trade policies are obviously going to be good for America.

To the point that he blew all other candidates out of the water.

So Conservatives are more interested in being Isolationist than deficit hawks?

You asked a serious question, I gave you a serious answer.

Would you like to address it.

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

 

[Correll]

Here's the part that defies explanation: Trump ran as a Populist. And as a new comer to the Republican Party. But not as a rock ribbed Conservative ideologue. What happened to all those Conservative principles? The Tea Party movement was, essentially, a bunch of deficit hawks, if they were to be believed. They were strict economic Conservatives. They worked to 'primary out' Republicans who did not fall inline with their orthodoxy. They called them RINOs.

They championed shutting down the government in a fit of political and economic pique. They claimed that their opposition to President Obama was not racial, but philosophical.

And yet they adore Donald Trump! Donald Trump who has declared his vision for the American budget to increase. To increase the size of government by spending more on the military, the infrastructure, building a ridiculous wall across the Mexican border and increasing the size of ICE, Border Patrol and other law enforcement. In other words, the size and power of the federal government.

Were all those pronouncements about cutting the size and budget of the federal government just so much bloviating, or are those Conservative ideals just so malleable that they were held insincerely by those who trumpeted support for them so loudly?

Conservatives principles are a means to an end. The end is the interests of America and Americans.

Trump's immigration and trade policies are obviously going to be good for America.

To the point that he blew all other candidates out of the water.

So Conservatives are more interested in being Isolationist than deficit hawks?

You asked a serious question, I gave you a serious answer.

Would you like to address it.

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

 

[Nosmo King]

Here's the part that defies explanation: Trump ran as a Populist. And as a new comer to the Republican Party. But not as a rock ribbed Conservative ideologue. What happened to all those Conservative principles? The Tea Party movement was, essentially, a bunch of deficit hawks, if they were to be believed. They were strict economic Conservatives. They worked to 'primary out' Republicans who did not fall inline with their orthodoxy. They called them RINOs.

They championed shutting down the government in a fit of political and economic pique. They claimed that their opposition to President Obama was not racial, but philosophical.

And yet they adore Donald Trump! Donald Trump who has declared his vision for the American budget to increase. To increase the size of government by spending more on the military, the infrastructure, building a ridiculous wall across the Mexican border and increasing the size of ICE, Border Patrol and other law enforcement. In other words, the size and power of the federal government.

Were all those pronouncements about cutting the size and budget of the federal government just so much bloviating, or are those Conservative ideals just so malleable that they were held insincerely by those who trumpeted support for them so loudly?

Conservatives principles are a means to an end. The end is the interests of America and Americans.

Trump's immigration and trade policies are obviously going to be good for America.

To the point that he blew all other candidates out of the water.

So Conservatives are more interested in being Isolationist than deficit hawks?

You asked a serious question, I gave you a serious answer.

Would you like to address it.

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

 

[Oldstyle]

Conservatives principles are a means to an end. The end is the interests of America and Americans.

Trump's immigration and trade policies are obviously going to be good for America.

To the point that he blew all other candidates out of the water.

So Conservatives are more interested in being Isolationist than deficit hawks?

You asked a serious question, I gave you a serious answer.

Would you like to address it.

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

With all due respect, Nosmo...I think you've failed to understand the mood of the American voter in this last election. The Trump vote was based more on a desire for change from the status quo than it was about Isolationism. People are genuinely sick of Washington politics and who more than Hillary Clinton represented Washington politics? Trump won because he promised voters that he would change things in Washington.

 

[Nosmo King]

So Conservatives are more interested in being Isolationist than deficit hawks?

You asked a serious question, I gave you a serious answer.

Would you like to address it.

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

With all due respect, Nosmo...I think you've failed to understand the mood of the American voter in this last election. The Trump vote was based more on a desire for change from the status quo than it was about Isolationism. People are genuinely sick of Washington politics and who more than Hillary Clinton represented Washington politics? Trump won because he promised voters that he would change things in Washington.

He did so by ringing the bell of Isolationism, Jingoism and Nationalism. "Make America Great Again", "Build that Wall", NAFTA Sucks!"

What he did not do was appeal to political purists, to ideologues, to the Conservative wing of the GOP.

Where were those ideologues? Whom did they support?

And that begs the question: were the ideologues as politically powerful as they thought, or did they just sell out their beliefs?

 

[Oldstyle]

You asked a serious question, I gave you a serious answer.

Would you like to address it.

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

With all due respect, Nosmo...I think you've failed to understand the mood of the American voter in this last election. The Trump vote was based more on a desire for change from the status quo than it was about Isolationism. People are genuinely sick of Washington politics and who more than Hillary Clinton represented Washington politics? Trump won because he promised voters that he would change things in Washington.

He did so by ringing the bell of Isolationism, Jingoism and Nationalism. "Make America Great Again", "Build that Wall", NAFTA Sucks!"

What he did not do was appeal to political purists, to ideologues, to the Conservative wing of the GOP.

Where were those ideologues? Whom did they support?

And that begs the question: were the ideologues as politically powerful as they thought, or did they just sell out their beliefs?

Trump isn't a far right conservative, Nosmo! What's amusing is that for all the hand wringing by the main stream media about the GOP supposedly being so far to the right...Republicans keep nominating centrists for President. Trump...Romney...McCain? None of them are far right. Gee, could it possibly be that conservatives are in fact the centrists and it's liberals who are far to the left? You'll never hear that narrative from the main stream media but actions speak louder than words!

 

[Oldstyle]

As for "bell ringing"? Clinton tried to trot out racism, sexism and income inequality as the reasons voters should turn out for her...the same things that Democrats have been running on for three election cycles. Could it be that people have started to ignore "the message" and are looking at what politicians DO when they are in office? It would appear that was the case for a lot of the blue collar Rust Belt vote.

 

[bripat9643]

.
It is unfortunate that conservatives choose to live in their alternate reality, which imprisons them in an environment completely devoid of facts. If they could leave their world of denial, they would find the following article by Newsweek enough to shock them to their senses. But this can never happen due to the conservatives’ deep fear of truth.

In the report by Newsweek (at the link below), the article’s author states, “Trump has had a few successes in business, most of his ventures have been disasters.” The article goes on to list the numerous business failings by Der Gropenfürher over the decades, and his complete lack of ethics illustrated by the many incidents when he has cheated others.

If any of you righties have the courage to face the truth (few of you do), read the Newsweek article at the following link: (Your expected responses, whether you read the article, or not, will echo the idiocy you have learned from Der Gropenfürher. Happily, your foolishness will provide more reasons for people of reason to laugh at clueless conservatives.)

Donald Trump's business failures: a comprehensive guide

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


View attachment 116545


.

Fake news.

 

[bripat9643]

Newsweek has far more credibility than Donnie the Liar in Chief.

No it doesn't.

Newsweek is a failed news magazine.

 

[Nosmo King]

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

With all due respect, Nosmo...I think you've failed to understand the mood of the American voter in this last election. The Trump vote was based more on a desire for change from the status quo than it was about Isolationism. People are genuinely sick of Washington politics and who more than Hillary Clinton represented Washington politics? Trump won because he promised voters that he would change things in Washington.

He did so by ringing the bell of Isolationism, Jingoism and Nationalism. "Make America Great Again", "Build that Wall", NAFTA Sucks!"

What he did not do was appeal to political purists, to ideologues, to the Conservative wing of the GOP.

Where were those ideologues? Whom did they support?

And that begs the question: were the ideologues as politically powerful as they thought, or did they just sell out their beliefs?

Trump isn't a far right conservative, Nosmo! What's amusing is that for all the hand wringing by the main stream media about the GOP supposedly being so far to the right...Republicans keep nominating centrists for President. Trump...Romney...McCain? None of them are far right. Gee, could it possibly be that conservatives are in fact the centrists and it's liberals who are far to the left? You'll never hear that narrative from the main stream media but actions speak louder than words!

True. But the far right won the 1014 midterms. They took control of the congress, forcing out moderate John Boehner. They staged shutdowns of the federal government over fiscal concerns.

But when it's time to take the White House, why didn't the far right marshal a nominee? Is the far right, the Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party wing as powerful as they would have us believe, or are they a fringe movement, a paper tiger?

 

[Correll]

Conservatives principles are a means to an end. The end is the interests of America and Americans.

Trump's immigration and trade policies are obviously going to be good for America.

To the point that he blew all other candidates out of the water.

So Conservatives are more interested in being Isolationist than deficit hawks?

You asked a serious question, I gave you a serious answer.

Would you like to address it.

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

1. NOthing in your post addressed my point about the policies of "Free Trade" and Amnesty not working as predicted. You didn't feel that judging the policies by their results was worth commenting on nor relevant to the election. Think about that.

2. Your analysis that it was all the conservatives fault is very self serving.

3. Our trade policy has resulted in never before seen trade deficits, and massive loss of jobs. Scrapping THAT trade policy is not Isolationism. Emphatically NO.

4. We have 20 to 30 million illegals living in this country. THe opposite of that is not Isolationism. Emphatically NO.

 

[Camp]

Newsweek has far more credibility than Donnie the Liar in Chief.

No it doesn't.

Newsweek is a failed news magazine.

Not a failed as the Liar in Chief so-called President.

 

[Correll]

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

With all due respect, Nosmo...I think you've failed to understand the mood of the American voter in this last election. The Trump vote was based more on a desire for change from the status quo than it was about Isolationism. People are genuinely sick of Washington politics and who more than Hillary Clinton represented Washington politics? Trump won because he promised voters that he would change things in Washington.

He did so by ringing the bell of Isolationism, Jingoism and Nationalism. "Make America Great Again", "Build that Wall", NAFTA Sucks!"

What he did not do was appeal to political purists, to ideologues, to the Conservative wing of the GOP.

Where were those ideologues? Whom did they support?

And that begs the question: were the ideologues as politically powerful as they thought, or did they just sell out their beliefs?

Trump isn't a far right conservative, Nosmo! What's amusing is that for all the hand wringing by the main stream media about the GOP supposedly being so far to the right...Republicans keep nominating centrists for President. Trump...Romney...McCain? None of them are far right. Gee, could it possibly be that conservatives are in fact the centrists and it's liberals who are far to the left? You'll never hear that narrative from the main stream media but actions speak louder than words!

True. But the far right won the 1014 midterms. They took control of the congress, forcing out moderate John Boehner. They staged shutdowns of the federal government over fiscal concerns.

But when it's time to take the White House, why didn't the far right marshal a nominee? Is the far right, the Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party wing as powerful as they would have us believe, or are they a fringe movement, a paper tiger?

That is the Logical Fallacy of False CHoice.

 

[Oldstyle]

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

With all due respect, Nosmo...I think you've failed to understand the mood of the American voter in this last election. The Trump vote was based more on a desire for change from the status quo than it was about Isolationism. People are genuinely sick of Washington politics and who more than Hillary Clinton represented Washington politics? Trump won because he promised voters that he would change things in Washington.

He did so by ringing the bell of Isolationism, Jingoism and Nationalism. "Make America Great Again", "Build that Wall", NAFTA Sucks!"

What he did not do was appeal to political purists, to ideologues, to the Conservative wing of the GOP.

Where were those ideologues? Whom did they support?

And that begs the question: were the ideologues as politically powerful as they thought, or did they just sell out their beliefs?

Trump isn't a far right conservative, Nosmo! What's amusing is that for all the hand wringing by the main stream media about the GOP supposedly being so far to the right...Republicans keep nominating centrists for President. Trump...Romney...McCain? None of them are far right. Gee, could it possibly be that conservatives are in fact the centrists and it's liberals who are far to the left? You'll never hear that narrative from the main stream media but actions speak louder than words!

True. But the far right won the 1014 midterms. They took control of the congress, forcing out moderate John Boehner. They staged shutdowns of the federal government over fiscal concerns.

But when it's time to take the White House, why didn't the far right marshal a nominee? Is the far right, the Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party wing as powerful as they would have us believe, or are they a fringe movement, a paper tiger?

You think Paul Ryan is more of a far right conservative than Boehner was? Sorry, Nosmo but Ryan's a moderate as well.

As for the Tea Party? Why do you refer to them as "far right"? I didn't see that at all. They were however adamantly against the progressive agenda that Obama, Pelosi and Reid were shoving down their throats.

 

[Nosmo King]

So Conservatives are more interested in being Isolationist than deficit hawks?

You asked a serious question, I gave you a serious answer.

Would you like to address it.

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

1. NOthing in your post addressed my point about the policies of "Free Trade" and Amnesty not working as predicted. You didn't feel that judging the policies by their results was worth commenting on nor relevant to the election. Think about that.

2. Your analysis that it was all the conservatives fault is very self serving.

3. Our trade policy has resulted in never before seen trade deficits, and massive loss of jobs. Scrapping THAT trade policy is not Isolationism. Emphatically NO.

4. We have 20 to 30 million illegals living in this country. THe opposite of that is not Isolationism. Emphatically NO.

Free trade has always been championed by Conservatives. Were they wrong? If that's the case, were they wrong about supply side economics too?

I know free trade has not worked out that well for the average American worker. But that was a policy the Republicans campaigned on since the 1980s.

I am not blaming the Conservatives for everything. That is not my contention. I am wondering where they all went to. Why they failed to rally behind a candidate in 2016. And if they were sincere in their beliefs in their principles.

And what do you call it when you decide to levy tariff and duties on imported goods? Globalism or Isolationism? What do you call it when you call for a border wall and mass deportations and a travel ban? Globalism or Isolationism?

 

[Correll]

You asked a serious question, I gave you a serious answer.

Would you like to address it.

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

1. NOthing in your post addressed my point about the policies of "Free Trade" and Amnesty not working as predicted. You didn't feel that judging the policies by their results was worth commenting on nor relevant to the election. Think about that.

2. Your analysis that it was all the conservatives fault is very self serving.

3. Our trade policy has resulted in never before seen trade deficits, and massive loss of jobs. Scrapping THAT trade policy is not Isolationism. Emphatically NO.

4. We have 20 to 30 million illegals living in this country. THe opposite of that is not Isolationism. Emphatically NO.

Free trade has always been championed by Conservatives. Were they wrong? If that's the case, were they wrong about supply side economics too?

...

IMO, it is hard to say. Was the problem inherent to the concept or just a result of very poor implementation (ie letting other nations cheat).

Regardless, it does not matter why. THe important part is that current trade is harmful to American interests.

I am not blaming the Conservatives for everything. That is not my contention. I am wondering where they all went to. Why they failed to rally behind a candidate in 2016. And if they were sincere in their beliefs in their principles.

I would recommend reading archived news paper and magazine articles from the election. The clashes between the various outside candidates and the various establishment candidates on the issues was the talk of the nation for over a year.

You can see in detail how various factions supported various candidates and those candidates rose and fell, and how the issues and ideologies were debated greatly.

And what do you call it when you decide to levy tariff and duties on imported goods? Globalism or Isolationism?

In the context of Current Day, I call it Not Being the World's Bitch on Trade. IF any of the nations in question come back with an offer of Mutually Beneficial Trade, that will be the test of whether or not Trump's policy is Isolationism.

What do you call it when you call for a border wall and mass deportations and a travel ban? Globalism or Isolationism?

When we have a nation to our south that has over twenty million of their citizens living in our nation, and we are regularly subjected to random mass murder by Jihadists?

I would call it Sanity.

 

[Nosmo King]

Free trade has always been a tent pole issue among Conservatives. Ronald Reagan in his push for immigration reform advocated amnesty. Suddenly, with the advent of the Populsit Donald Trump, those issues have evaporated. Are Conservatives true to their ideology, is their ideology simply dismissible to justify a political defeat for Democrats, or are those political principles not recognized by Trump? Was Trump elected with Conservative support, or Populist support.

And if it was Populism, why are Conservatives so fully supportive of Trump?

Isolationism or Conservatism. Which won the day?

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

1. NOthing in your post addressed my point about the policies of "Free Trade" and Amnesty not working as predicted. You didn't feel that judging the policies by their results was worth commenting on nor relevant to the election. Think about that.

2. Your analysis that it was all the conservatives fault is very self serving.

3. Our trade policy has resulted in never before seen trade deficits, and massive loss of jobs. Scrapping THAT trade policy is not Isolationism. Emphatically NO.

4. We have 20 to 30 million illegals living in this country. THe opposite of that is not Isolationism. Emphatically NO.

Free trade has always been championed by Conservatives. Were they wrong? If that's the case, were they wrong about supply side economics too?

...

IMO, it is hard to say. Was the problem inherent to the concept or just a result of very poor implementation (ie letting other nations cheat).

Regardless, it does not matter why. THe important part is that current trade is harmful to American interests.

I am not blaming the Conservatives for everything. That is not my contention. I am wondering where they all went to. Why they failed to rally behind a candidate in 2016. And if they were sincere in their beliefs in their principles.

I would recommend reading archived news paper and magazine articles from the election. The clashes between the various outside candidates and the various establishment candidates on the issues was the talk of the nation for over a year.

You can see in detail how various factions supported various candidates and those candidates rose and fell, and how the issues and ideologies were debated greatly.

And what do you call it when you decide to levy tariff and duties on imported goods? Globalism or Isolationism?

In the context of Current Day, I call it Not Being the World's Bitch on Trade. IF any of the nations in question come back with an offer of Mutually Beneficial Trade, that will be the test of whether or not Trump's policy is Isolationism.

What do you call it when you call for a border wall and mass deportations and a travel ban? Globalism or Isolationism?

When we have a nation to our south that has over twenty million of their citizens living in our nation, and we are regularly subjected to random mass murder by Jihadists?

I would call it Sanity.

Jihadists! Nice deflection!

 

[Correll]

1. Free Trade was supposed to lead to increased competitiveness and those workers who lost jobs were to soon find jobs in high tech industries.

The results did not match theory.

The reasons are debatable. The results are not.


2. Reagan gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals and that was supposed to solve the problem. Now we have probably 20 to 30 million. Reagan's policy was a completely failure. The reasons are debatable. THe failure is not.

3. Your attempt to use a strawman ie Isolationism shows that you fear to have an honest discussion on the issues. Save your spin for someone with less experience with you lefties.

Here's what I think.

I think that Populism won the day. Why? Because for all their righteousness, the Conservatives have caused a rift in the GOP. By purging the ideologically unworthy, by flying off in fits of political pique shutting down the government, by careening from manufactured fiscal crisis to manufactured fiscal crisis, the Conservative wing lost sight of the political process altogether. They failed to form workable coalitions in congress and within the Republican party.

That left the GOP vulnerable to a Populist neophyte like Donald Trump.

But I have to wonder. What happened to all those Conservatives? Did they sell out just to defeat Sec. Clinton, or were they insincere in their stated principles to begin with?

As for Isolationism, consider scraping trade agreements, restricting immigration and walling off the southern border. Are these the actions of an Isolationist? Emphatically yes.

1. NOthing in your post addressed my point about the policies of "Free Trade" and Amnesty not working as predicted. You didn't feel that judging the policies by their results was worth commenting on nor relevant to the election. Think about that.

2. Your analysis that it was all the conservatives fault is very self serving.

3. Our trade policy has resulted in never before seen trade deficits, and massive loss of jobs. Scrapping THAT trade policy is not Isolationism. Emphatically NO.

4. We have 20 to 30 million illegals living in this country. THe opposite of that is not Isolationism. Emphatically NO.

Free trade has always been championed by Conservatives. Were they wrong? If that's the case, were they wrong about supply side economics too?

...

IMO, it is hard to say. Was the problem inherent to the concept or just a result of very poor implementation (ie letting other nations cheat).

Regardless, it does not matter why. THe important part is that current trade is harmful to American interests.

I am not blaming the Conservatives for everything. That is not my contention. I am wondering where they all went to. Why they failed to rally behind a candidate in 2016. And if they were sincere in their beliefs in their principles.

I would recommend reading archived news paper and magazine articles from the election. The clashes between the various outside candidates and the various establishment candidates on the issues was the talk of the nation for over a year.

You can see in detail how various factions supported various candidates and those candidates rose and fell, and how the issues and ideologies were debated greatly.

And what do you call it when you decide to levy tariff and duties on imported goods? Globalism or Isolationism?

In the context of Current Day, I call it Not Being the World's Bitch on Trade. IF any of the nations in question come back with an offer of Mutually Beneficial Trade, that will be the test of whether or not Trump's policy is Isolationism.

What do you call it when you call for a border wall and mass deportations and a travel ban? Globalism or Isolationism?

When we have a nation to our south that has over twenty million of their citizens living in our nation, and we are regularly subjected to random mass murder by Jihadists?

I would call it Sanity.

Jihadists! Nice deflection!

1. I answered your question regarding Free Trade seriously and honestly. You ignored it.

2. You brought up the travel ban. I merely pointed out the reason for it, ie random mass murder by Jihadists. Your calling that a "Deflection" does not change the fact that a policy to avoid random mass murder is not Isolationism.